GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Davion Mitchell 33.9m
16
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.5

Despite applying his trademark point-of-attack pressure (+4.2 Def), his overall impact slipped into the negative due to stalled offensive execution. Holding the ball too long at the top of the key allowed the defense to set, neutralizing his otherwise solid shooting splits.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 33.9m -19.6
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Andrew Wiggins 33.2m
17
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.9

A deceptively poor outing where empty-calorie scoring masked significant lapses in off-ball awareness. Getting caught back-door and failing to box out on crucial possessions ultimately bled points and tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.0
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 33.2m -19.3
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 5
S Norman Powell 32.5m
27
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.4

Explosive shot-making kept the offense afloat, but his overall value was heavily muted by defensive bleed. Opponents consistently blew past him on the perimeter, forcing rotations that gave back almost everything he created on the other end.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 32.5m -18.9
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kel'el Ware 27.7m
15
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.4

Dominated the painted area with vertical spacing and elite rim deterrence (+7.8 Def). Taking only high-percentage looks and finishing with authority created a highly efficient offensive profile that consistently punished the opposition.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.2%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.8
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 27.7m -16.1
Impact +12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Pelle Larsson 27.4m
9
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.0

Phenomenal energy on 50/50 balls and offensive put-backs (+8.4 Hustle) was completely undone by constant defensive breakdowns. Opposing guards repeatedly targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, leading to a severely negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +8.3
Defense -0.9
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 27.4m -15.9
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
11
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-13.0

A brutal combination of forced isolation drives and bricked perimeter looks severely damaged the team's offensive rhythm. His insistence on attacking set defenses resulted in empty possessions that directly fueled opponent transition runs.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.7%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.3
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 29.9m -17.3
Impact -13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.4

Elite weak-side shot blocking and relentless rebounding (+8.9 Def) could not salvage a catastrophic offensive showing. He completely short-circuited the half-court offense by missing wide-open reads and clanking uncontested spot-up looks.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 15.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -28.4
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense -9.5
Hustle +5.0
Defense +8.9
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 22.1m -12.8
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 4
13
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Capitalized on catch-and-shoot opportunities, yet his overall impact suffered due to poor transition awareness. Slow closeouts and an inability to contain straight-line drives negated the value of his perimeter marksmanship.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 19.2m -11.2
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Dru Smith 14.1m
6
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

Struggled to find a rhythm as a secondary creator, frequently driving into traffic and settling for off-balance floaters. While he competed hard on the perimeter, the lack of offensive creation ultimately resulted in a slightly negative floor presence.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.7
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 14.1m -8.2
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S De'Andre Hunter 28.4m
21
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.7

Strong defensive rotations on the wing (+6.5 Def) anchored his positive impact. His value would have been even higher if not for settling for contested perimeter looks, as the bulk of his success came from attacking closeouts.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.1%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +3.3
Defense +6.5
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 28.4m -16.5
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jarrett Allen 27.4m
30
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.2

Elite interior positioning and relentless rim-running drove a massive positive impact score. He consistently sealed his man deep in the paint, generating high-percentage looks that completely broke the opponent's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +24.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.1
Raw total +30.0
Avg player in 27.4m -15.8
Impact +14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dean Wade 26.2m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

Despite providing solid weak-side rim deterrence (+5.0 Def), his overall impact plummeted into the negative. A lack of offensive aggression allowed his primary defender to constantly roam and disrupt Cleveland's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +5.0
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 26.2m -15.3
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Sam Merrill 20.6m
5
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.0

Impact cratered due to a disastrous perimeter shooting display that consistently bailed out the defense. While he generated some value through active off-ball movement and loose-ball recoveries (+3.6 Hustle), the sheer volume of wasted possessions derailed the offense.

Shooting
FG 1/10 (10.0%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 23.0%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 20.6m -11.9
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Lonzo Ball 20.5m
15
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+6.4

Exceptional shot selection from beyond the arc maximized his offensive footprint in limited minutes. His ability to quickly process reads in the half-court kept the ball moving and prevented defensive sets from stagnating.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.5%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 20.5m -11.9
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
19
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
+16.3

A masterclass in two-way disruption, highlighted by suffocating point-of-attack defense (+11.2 Def) that completely derailed the opponent's initiation. He compounded that defensive pressure with timely 50/50 ball recoveries and flawless decision-making on the break.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 71.3%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +29.7
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +6.2
Defense +11.2
Raw total +35.1
Avg player in 32.2m -18.8
Impact +16.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 4
TO 2
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.9

Poor shot selection and an inability to finish through contact dragged his net impact firmly into the red. Forcing contested mid-range pull-ups short-circuited several possessions, negating the value he provided through high-energy transition defense.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +40.8
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 22.7m -13.2
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Passive offensive involvement limited his overall effectiveness, as he frequently passed up open looks within the flow of the offense. He salvaged his rating slightly by executing crisp defensive rotations and fighting for extra possessions on the glass (+4.0 Hustle).

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 19.4m -11.3
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.4

Overcame a rough shooting night by committing to the dirty work on the defensive end. His length disrupted passing lanes and altered shots at the rim (+5.2 Def), proving that his motor can drive winning basketball even when his jumper is broken.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +51.3
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.2
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 17.6m -10.2
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.1

Anchored the second unit with sturdy post defense and disciplined drop coverage (+4.2 Def). Operating strictly within his role as a screen-setter and rim-protector allowed him to positively influence the game without needing heavy offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +52.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 12.8m -7.4
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Luke Travers 12.1m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Defensive versatility kept him above water despite a frigid shooting performance. His ability to seamlessly switch onto larger wings and deny entry passes (+4.7 Def) proved far more valuable than his missed perimeter looks.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +40.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.7
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 12.1m -7.0
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0