GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Kel'el Ware 33.6m
20
pts
18
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.0

Utterly dominated the glass, generating crucial second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's back. His willingness to confidently step into trail threes stretched the opposing bigs out of the paint, opening up driving lanes for everyone else. This combination of interior bullying and perimeter spacing fueled a massive box impact.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +4.1
Defense +5.0
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 33.6m -16.5
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
S Davion Mitchell 32.2m
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.3

Suffocating ball pressure set the tone for his stint, as he repeatedly forced the opposing point guard into late-clock desperation heaves. He didn't force the issue offensively, taking only high-percentage looks within the flow of the offense. This disciplined, defense-first approach perfectly complemented the primary scorers and yielded a steady positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg +28.4
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.1
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 32.2m -15.9
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tyler Herro 29.4m
24
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+16.3

A masterclass in mid-range shot creation punished drop coverages with lethal efficiency to drive a towering box score impact. He didn't just score; he actively disrupted passing lanes and stayed attached to shooters, resulting in a surprisingly elite defensive rating. His two-way execution dictated the entire flow of the game during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 12/18 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +25.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +9.1
Raw total +30.7
Avg player in 29.4m -14.4
Impact +16.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Bam Adebayo 29.3m
17
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.5

Defensive versatility was the engine here, as he seamlessly switched onto guards and blew up multiple pick-and-roll actions. His offensive efficiency suffered from settling for contested long twos rather than punishing mismatches inside. Nevertheless, his ability to single-handedly anchor the defense kept his overall impact firmly positive.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 7/11 (63.6%)
Advanced
TS% 47.6%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.9
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 29.3m -14.3
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Pelle Larsson 28.2m
9
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.0

High-energy closeouts and active hands defined a strong hustle performance, but his offensive execution faltered. He rushed several floaters in traffic that led to empty trips and opponent run-outs. The resulting swing in transition defense ultimately dragged his net rating into negative territory despite his relentless motor.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 28.2m -13.9
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
13
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.6

Despite solid individual defensive metrics, his impact plummeted due to stagnant off-ball positioning that clogged the team's half-court flow. He repeatedly held the ball too long against set defenses, allowing the opponent to reset and trap. These momentum-killing offensive possessions ultimately outweighed his gritty work on the margins.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 32.6m -16.1
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.9

Brutal shot selection from the perimeter completely derailed his offensive value, as he continually fired contested jumpers early in the shot clock. These long misses directly fueled the opponent's transition game, negating his otherwise competent half-court defense. The inability to recognize when to attack closeouts instead of shooting dragged his rating deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 21.1m -10.4
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Capitalized brilliantly on defensive inattention, finding soft spots in the zone for easy dump-off finishes. His high-motor hustle plays generated extra possessions, making up for a few blown coverages on the perimeter. By playing strictly within his role and maximizing limited touches, he carved out a highly efficient positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.2
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 17.8m -8.8
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Dru Smith 15.8m
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

An absolute nightmare of an offensive performance was somewhat mitigated by a phenomenal hustle rating. He couldn't buy a bucket and repeatedly forced bad angles on his drives, but his relentless diving for loose balls and aggressive closeouts prevented a total blowout during his minutes. His defensive tenacity kept him on the floor even as his jumper completely abandoned him.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -43.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense -4.9
Hustle +7.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 15.8m -7.8
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S P.J. Washington 34.4m
27
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.6

Elite shot selection and aggressive rim pressure fueled a dominant offensive showing, completely overwhelming his primary matchups. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns with timely cuts and confident perimeter strokes. Strong positional defense ensured this scoring outburst translated directly to winning basketball and a massive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.3%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +5.7
Defense +6.5
Raw total +30.5
Avg player in 34.4m -16.9
Impact +13.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Cooper Flagg 33.9m
12
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.2

A massive +8.0 hustle rating salvaged what was otherwise a brutal shooting night defined by perimeter struggles. His offensive rhythm completely stalled out with forced looks from deep, dragging down his overall efficiency. However, relentless off-ball activity and high-level defensive rotations kept his net impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.3%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +8.0
Defense +6.8
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 33.9m -16.6
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Max Christie 30.0m
15
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

Despite finding a great rhythm from beyond the arc, hidden defensive lapses and poor transition spacing dragged his total impact slightly into the red. His scoring punch was offset by giving up too many straight-line drives on the other end. A lack of secondary playmaking ultimately limited his ability to swing the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 30.0m -14.8
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Daniel Gafford 28.4m
11
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.1

Anchoring the paint with disciplined drop coverage drove a steady positive defensive rating despite a dip in his usual offensive volume. He generated extra possessions through consistent interior physicality, refusing to be moved off his spots. The lack of forced shots allowed him to maintain a highly efficient, positive overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +32.8
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 28.4m -14.0
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
12
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.6

Poor shot selection cratered his overall rating, as he repeatedly settled for contested mid-range pull-ups instead of moving the ball. The resulting empty possessions allowed the opponent to dictate the tempo during his minutes. Even a respectable defensive effort couldn't mask the damage done by his offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.7%
USG% 32.7%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 20.9m -10.3
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

A stark drop in offensive aggression neutralized his excellent point-of-attack defense. He passed up several open looks on the perimeter, bogging down the half-court offense and leading to late-clock heaves by teammates. His reluctance to attack closeouts ultimately resulted in a negative net rating despite his defensive clinics.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -31.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.5
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 21.4m -10.6
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.7

Gravity remains his greatest asset, as his constant off-ball movement warped the opposing defense and created driving lanes for teammates. He paired this floor-stretching presence with highly disciplined closeouts, driving a stellar defensive rating. Even with a few forced perimeter looks, his veteran positioning kept the team in firm control during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.4
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 20.1m -10.0
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-6.0

Offensive impact cratered due to an inability to finish through contact, missing multiple high-value looks in the paint. He managed the game well as a facilitator, but defenses sagged off him completely, which destroyed the team's half-court spacing. His solid point-of-attack defense wasn't enough to offset the spacing issues his shooting woes created.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +23.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 16.8m -8.3
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Generated value entirely through hard screens and occupying the dunker spot to free up the primary ball handlers. While he didn't look at the rim, his hustle plays kept possessions alive and disrupted the opponent's rebounding rhythm. A few late contests at the rim slightly dinged his defensive metrics, leaving him at a near-neutral impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.3
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 10.3m -5.1
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.0

A disastrous playmaking stint was highlighted by forced passes into traffic and completely stagnant off-ball stretches. He failed to bend the defense on his drives, leading to heavily contested jumpers that sparked opponent transition opportunities. This total lack of offensive rhythm resulted in a catastrophic negative impact in under ten minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense -5.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total -5.2
Avg player in 9.8m -4.8
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Kept a low profile during a short rotation, prioritizing ball security over his usual scoring aggression. He made one decisive read attacking a closeout but otherwise floated on the perimeter. The conservative approach yielded a slightly positive rating by simply avoiding mistakes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense +3.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 4.8m -2.4
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Completely invisible on the offensive end, failing to register a single shot attempt or meaningful touch. His negative impact stemmed entirely from defensive miscommunications, getting caught ball-watching on two separate back-door cuts. The lack of engagement across the board made him a liability during his brief run.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -97.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 4.7m -2.3
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Missed rotations and poor screen navigation defined a brief but damaging stint on the floor. He was repeatedly targeted in the pick-and-roll, bleeding points before being subbed out. The inability to establish any physical presence inside led to a swift negative total impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -115.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 4.5m -2.3
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1