GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Andrew Wiggins 34.4m
17
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Consistent two-way play kept his overall impact slightly above water during a heavy-minute workload. He took what the defense gave him without over-dribbling, effectively punishing late closeouts from the corners. His ability to stay attached to primary scorers on the perimeter provided a steadying defensive presence throughout the night.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg +35.2
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.9
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 34.4m -17.9
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Bam Adebayo 28.8m
20
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.1

An absolute masterclass in two-way efficiency powered a massive positive impact score. He broke out of a recent slump by taking decisive, in-rhythm jumpers and bullying smaller defenders on switches. Anchoring the defense with flawless pick-and-roll coverage and elite communication completely suffocated the opponent's interior attack.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +6.2
Defense +7.8
Raw total +31.2
Avg player in 28.8m -15.1
Impact +16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Norman Powell 28.3m
25
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.1

Scorching hot shot-making from the wing was the undeniable catalyst for his stellar overall rating. He ruthlessly exploited drop coverage by stepping into uncontested pull-ups and attacking closeouts with zero hesitation. This hyper-efficient offensive explosion forced the opponent to constantly adjust their defensive scheme, opening the floor for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.6%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +21.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.3
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 28.3m -14.7
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Pelle Larsson 28.3m
10
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.3

A sudden loss of shooting touch derailed his offensive value after a highly efficient recent stretch. He routinely forced contested drives into heavy traffic, resulting in dead-end possessions that allowed the defense to reset. Despite bringing excellent energy and defensive rotation, the offensive stagnation he caused ultimately dragged his rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.2%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +4.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 28.3m -14.7
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Davion Mitchell 24.3m
5
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.7

Uncharacteristic defensive lapses at the point of attack severely hampered his overall value. Opposing guards consistently blew past his initial pressure, forcing the backline into scramble mode and leading to easy dump-offs. While he facilitated the offense decently well, his inability to contain dribble penetration made him a net negative on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.2
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 24.3m -12.7
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.8

Gritty connective play managed to keep his impact barely positive despite a rough shooting night. He compensated for clanking his mid-range attempts by making rapid reads out of the post and generating high-quality looks for cutters. Exceptional positional awareness on defense helped blow up several weak-side actions, salvaging his overall floor game.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 16.8%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.6
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 34.4m -17.9
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Dru Smith 23.7m
4
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.1

Elite defensive activity and relentless hustle plays pushed his impact into the green despite a nearly invisible scoring output. He was an absolute menace in the passing lanes, generating deflections that sparked crucial transition opportunities. By strictly playing within himself and focusing entirely on the dirty work, he provided massive hidden value to the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.6%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +7.7
Defense +7.4
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 23.7m -12.3
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Kel'el Ware 19.2m
7
pts
16
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.0

Total domination of the glass fueled a positive rating despite his struggles to finish around the basket. He consistently outworked opposing bigs for second-chance opportunities, extending possessions and tiring out the defense. His sheer vertical presence as a rim deterrent completely altered the opponent's shot profile in the paint.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense +7.9
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 19.2m -9.9
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.5

Firing away indiscriminately from the perimeter tanked his offensive efficiency and overall impact. He consistently settled for contested, early-clock jumpers that functioned essentially as live-ball turnovers. Even a few decent defensive rotations couldn't mask the damage caused by his black-hole tendencies on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.9
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 18.5m -9.6
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
GSW Golden State Warriors
S Moses Moody 35.7m
9
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-14.3

A massive drop-off in scoring efficiency from his previous outing created a crater in his net impact. Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock led to transition opportunities going the other way. Despite giving commendable effort on the defensive end, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.9%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 35.7m -18.5
Impact -14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
20
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.3

High usage combined with poor shot quality resulted in a surprisingly negative overall rating despite his scoring totals. He settled for difficult floaters and contested perimeter looks instead of moving the ball, breaking the offense's rhythm. The lack of secondary hustle plays meant he couldn't offset the damage caused by his inefficient volume.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 45.3%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 34.5m -17.9
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.7

Dominating the paint through sheer physical exertion drove a highly positive overall impact. He capitalized on low-block opportunities without forcing bad looks, acting as a highly efficient release valve. His rim protection and ability to secure defensive boards effectively neutralized the opponent's interior attack.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +2.6
Defense +7.0
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 24.9m -12.9
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Gui Santos 18.4m
4
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

After a hot shooting streak coming into the night, his shot selection completely abandoned him here. Heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers resulted in empty trips that tanked his offensive value. However, his relentless activity on the glass and solid rotational defense kept the overall damage somewhat contained.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.4%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -35.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.6
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 18.4m -9.5
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Will Richard 18.1m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.6

A complete offensive vanishing act severely dragged down his overall rating. Unable to find any rhythm on the perimeter, his empty possessions stalled the second unit's momentum. Even a slightly positive defensive effort couldn't salvage a brutal stint where he was entirely ignored by the opposing scheme.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg -64.1
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total -2.2
Avg player in 18.1m -9.4
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Pat Spencer 32.1m
11
pts
8
reb
13
ast
Impact
+2.3

Masterful orchestration of the half-court offense drove his positive impact, constantly finding cutters and shooters in stride. Even though his own finishing at the rim was erratic, his ability to manipulate defensive rotations created high-value looks for everyone else. He controlled the game's tempo beautifully during crucial second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 32.1m -16.8
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Buddy Hield 30.8m
18
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.7

Chucking from beyond the arc at an extreme volume prevented him from registering a positive net impact. While his aggressive off-ball movement generated some defensive chaos, the sheer number of clanked deep balls fueled long rebounds for the opposition. His exceptional hustle metrics barely kept his overall value near neutral.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 4/15 (26.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +5.9
Defense +8.9
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 30.8m -16.0
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
Quinten Post 26.3m
19
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.9

Stretching the floor as a trailing big man completely warped the opposing defense and fueled his positive rating. His willingness to take open perimeter looks pulled rim protectors away from the paint, opening up driving lanes for the guards. Active hands in the passing lanes and solid positional defense rounded out a highly productive breakout performance.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +5.3
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 26.3m -13.7
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
7
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.9

Elite point-of-attack defense was the primary engine behind his highly effective stint on the floor. He completely disrupted the opponent's perimeter initiation, blowing up dribble hand-offs and forcing rushed decisions. Offensively, he stayed entirely within his role, taking only high-percentage looks at the rim to maximize his value.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +7.7
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 19.1m -9.9
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0