GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Andrew Wiggins 33.0m
6
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-13.4

A catastrophic shooting night completely tanked his overall value, as he repeatedly short-circuited possessions with contested midrange clanks. His inability to punish mismatches allowed the defense to aggressively load up on the strong side. Despite showing flashes of engagement on the defensive glass, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips resulted in a massive negative impact.

Shooting
FG 3/15 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.2
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 33.0m -17.0
Impact -13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Davion Mitchell 32.5m
18
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.8

Suffocating point-of-attack defense disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm and set the tone for a highly positive shift. He consistently blew up dribble hand-offs, turning defensive stops into immediate transition opportunities. A surprising burst of offensive efficiency from the perimeter prevented defenders from going under screens, maximizing his playmaking gravity.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +6.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 32.5m -16.9
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Norman Powell 31.7m
19
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.9

High-volume inefficiency and a lack of perimeter spacing dragged his net score slightly into the red. He forced the issue repeatedly in the third quarter, driving into heavily populated gaps instead of keeping the ball moving. The resulting empty possessions outweighed his commendable effort in chasing shooters off the line.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +5.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 31.7m -16.4
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kel'el Ware 30.7m
16
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+16.6

Total domination of the painted area fueled an astronomical net positive rating. He completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt as a roll man, converting nearly every rim attempt with explosive finishes. Coupled with disciplined verticality on defense, this performance showcased a massive leap in two-way processing speed.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.7%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.0
Raw total +32.6
Avg player in 30.7m -16.0
Impact +16.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
S Pelle Larsson 26.3m
13
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.0

Off-the-charts hustle metrics and timely floor-spacing drove a highly effective rotational stint. He repeatedly generated second-chance opportunities by crashing the offensive glass from the weak side. Continuing a highly efficient stretch of games, his decisive spot-up shooting perfectly complemented the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +10.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 26.3m -13.6
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.0

Impact cratered due to stagnant off-ball positioning and poor defensive rotations on the weak side. He frequently got caught ball-watching, surrendering crippling back-door cuts during a pivotal second-half stretch. Even though his individual scoring efficiency was adequate, his inability to execute team defensive concepts bled points at an alarming rate.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.8
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 32.5m -16.9
Impact -11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
14
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.9

Elite floor-spacing gravity completely unlocked the half-court offense and drove a strong positive rating. He punished defensive breakdowns by relocating flawlessly along the perimeter for catch-and-shoot daggers. Breaking out of a severe shooting slump, his mere presence on the arc forced opposing bigs into impossible closeout situations.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 20.6m -10.6
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Dru Smith 15.5m
11
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.9

Capitalized brilliantly on limited touches by executing his role as a spot-up threat to perfection. He swung the momentum in the second quarter by burying momentum-killing triples whenever the defense collapsed on drives. This massive spike in perimeter efficiency directly translated to a highly potent offensive rating while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.5
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 15.5m -8.0
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.0

Poor shot selection and a lack of defensive resistance at the nail resulted in a disjointed, negative stint. He settled for rushed, early-clock jumpers instead of using his size to attack closeouts. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent fast breaks, compounding his struggles to stay in front of quicker forwards.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.2
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 15.0m -7.8
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

A brief, erratic cameo yielded a slightly negative return due to forced offensive actions. He rushed a pair of contested looks early in the shot clock, disrupting the unit's offensive flow. Showed adequate defensive footwork, but the wasted possessions defined his short time on the court.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -57.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 2.3m -1.1
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Landry Shamet 39.4m
10
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.5

Phenomenal off-ball movement and relentless loose-ball recoveries kept his impact from completely cratering. However, a string of badly bricked catch-and-shoot looks from the corners sabotaged the spacing for the primary creators. His inability to punish defensive gaps ultimately resulted in a slight negative net rating despite the elite energy metrics.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 36.7%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +12.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 39.4m -20.4
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Mikal Bridges 39.2m
23
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.6

High-level two-way execution drove a massive positive impact, anchored by elite defensive rotations that stifled perimeter penetration. His offensive surge well above his recent average came from decisively punishing closeouts rather than settling. The combination of efficient shot selection and switchability created a massive net positive when he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +8.8
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 39.2m -20.4
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 2
S Miles McBride 38.7m
25
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

A massive scoring spike masked a highly detrimental overall floor game characterized by tunnel vision and hijacked possessions. He derailed the half-court flow by repeatedly isolating late in the shot clock against set defenders. The sheer volume of empty offensive trips dragged his net impact firmly into the red despite the hot shooting stretches.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 38.7m -20.0
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
22
pts
15
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.7

A heavy volume of forced, contested perimeter looks dragged his overall impact into the negative despite solid rebounding metrics. His insistence on settling for pick-and-pop triples against switching bigs short-circuited offensive possessions. While he provided adequate rim deterrence, the wasted offensive trips ultimately neutralized his value.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 32.6m -16.9
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
5
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.5

Absolute dominance as a drop-coverage anchor fueled a highly efficient defensive rating during his limited minutes. He completely walled off the paint against second-unit slashers, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. Continuing a trend of elite shot selection, he strictly limited his offensive touches to high-value putbacks and lobs.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.1
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 18.5m -9.6
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Hart 34.1m
14
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
0.0

Elite transition playmaking and relentless positional rebounding perfectly balanced out his offensive passivity in the half-court. He served as the ultimate connective tissue during the second quarter, generating extra possessions through sheer willpower. Ultimately, his reluctance to look at the rim allowed defenders to sag, resulting in a perfectly neutral overall impact.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +7.5
Defense +7.3
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 34.1m -17.7
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 6
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.2

Scoring efficiency inside the arc was entirely offset by defensive lapses at the point of attack. He bled value by routinely dying on screens, forcing the backline into scramble mode. The resulting easy rotation buckets for the opponent washed away the gains from his aggressive downhill drives.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.2
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 26.1m -13.5
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Complete offensive invisibility torpedoed his stint on the floor, as he failed to command any attention from the defense. Opposing wings blatantly ignored him on the perimeter to pack the paint against drivers. Without any scoring gravity to bend the defense, his adequate physical post defense couldn't salvage a negative shift.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 10.0m -5.2
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.9

Generated a quick positive blip in garbage time through attentive weak-side defensive positioning. He effectively blew up a late pick-and-roll action by hedging hard and recovering. A brief but fundamentally sound cameo that slightly bumped his defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 1.4m -0.7
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0