GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Andrew Wiggins 36.9m
31
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+21.0

An absolute masterclass in two-way dominance that resulted in a sky-high total impact score. He completely neutralized his primary assignment on the perimeter while punishing mismatches in the post with surgical precision. Elite shot selection and zero wasted motion allowed him to shatter his recent scoring averages while anchoring the defense.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.8%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +29.7
Hustle +5.8
Defense +8.7
Raw total +44.2
Avg player in 36.9m -23.2
Impact +21.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bam Adebayo 33.2m
15
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Outstanding rim protection and defensive versatility were undone by a slew of uncharacteristic offensive mistakes. He repeatedly forced passes from the elbows into congested paint areas, racking up turnovers that fueled the opposition. Despite locking down the paint, his sloppy execution as an offensive hub dragged his total impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +16.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +9.9
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 33.2m -20.9
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Norman Powell 33.0m
28
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.5

Explosive scoring numbers were heavily offset by defensive lapses and poor ball security in traffic. He repeatedly lost his man on backdoor cuts, giving away easy baskets that chipped away at his offensive value. While his aggressive downhill drives generated points, the accompanying turnovers kept his net impact surprisingly modest.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +19.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 33.0m -20.8
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tyler Herro 32.3m
24
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

A heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers tanked his efficiency and overall net score. He struggled mightily to create separation against length, resulting in a barrage of clanked mid-range pull-ups that sparked long rebounds and fast breaks. The scoring volume was entirely hollow, as poor shot selection actively harmed the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 32.3m -20.3
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 68.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Davion Mitchell 32.1m
7
pts
1
reb
10
ast
Impact
-0.3

Phenomenal hustle and point-of-attack defense were nearly erased by an inability to convert open looks. He generated multiple deflections to stall the opponent's offensive initiation, but his bricked floaters and missed layups killed his team's momentum. A pristine assist-to-turnover ratio wasn't quite enough to overcome the damage from his shooting woes.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.9%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +18.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +6.5
Defense +6.1
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 32.1m -20.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

A stark departure from his recent hot streak, marred by tentative decision-making and poor spacing. He passed up open catch-and-shoot opportunities only to drive into heavy traffic, resulting in blocked shots and lost possessions. While his defensive effort remained intact, his offensive hesitation severely bottlenecked the unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 24.7m -15.7
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Kel'el Ware 21.7m
12
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.6

Capitalized on his interior touches with excellent touch and decisive rim runs. He altered several shots at the basket during a crucial second-quarter stretch, showcasing his growing awareness as a weakside helper. By avoiding foul trouble and finishing the plays created for him, he delivered a highly efficient two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -26.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.6
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 21.7m -13.6
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Dru Smith 15.9m
9
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.6

Provided a massive spark off the bench by decisively attacking closeouts and making quick reads. He completely flipped his recent shooting struggles by hunting high-percentage looks in the paint rather than settling. His steady hand as a secondary creator stabilized the second unit during a chaotic first half.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 71.2%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -42.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.2
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 15.9m -10.0
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.0

A disastrous stint characterized by defensive confusion and costly live-ball turnovers. He was targeted relentlessly in space, routinely biting on pump fakes and surrendering straight-line drives. His inability to process defensive rotations quickly led to an avalanche of opponent points during his brief stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -56.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense -8.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.1
Raw total -7.6
Avg player in 10.2m -6.4
Impact -14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 38.4m
29
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-7.9

A heavy mid-range diet yielded plenty of buckets, but his overall impact cratered due to a catastrophic turnover rate against blitzing pick-and-roll coverages. He consistently forced passes into tight windows during the third quarter, fueling opponent fast breaks. The sheer volume of empty possessions completely overshadowed his scoring output.

Shooting
FG 14/25 (56.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.0%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 38.4m -24.2
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 8
S Duncan Robinson 31.9m
18
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.9

Surprisingly robust defensive metrics kept his head above water on a night where his signature outside shot was erratic. His constant off-ball movement warped the opposing defensive shell, though a string of bad passing reads on the perimeter dragged down his total impact. He managed to provide value by executing timely weakside rotations.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.0
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 31.9m -20.0
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tobias Harris 30.6m
26
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.7

Sizzling perimeter shot-making drove a massive box score value, but his actual net impact was sharply reduced by defensive passivity. He was repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll switches during the second half, bleeding points that offset his scoring outburst. The scoring volume masked how much he gave back through costly reaching fouls.

Shooting
FG 10/12 (83.3%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.1
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 30.6m -19.3
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ausar Thompson 30.5m
10
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.4

High hustle metrics couldn't salvage a disastrous overall impact rating. His value plummeted due to a staggering rate of live-ball turnovers when attacking closeouts on the wing. Despite finishing efficiently around the rim, his sloppy ball security in transition completely negated his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -20.4
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 30.5m -19.2
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Isaiah Stewart 28.9m
9
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.9

Physicality in the paint generated solid defensive and hustle metrics, yet his overall footprint was deeply negative. A pattern of illegal screens and offensive fouls completely derailed offensive possessions. He struggled to anchor the drop coverage against quick guards, leading to defensive breakdowns that tanked his final score.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 28.9m -18.1
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.2

Elite defensive disruption defined his stint on the floor, highlighted by suffocating on-ball pressure against opposing wings. He converted defense into offense beautifully, finishing efficiently in transition to break out of a recent scoring slump. His disciplined closeouts and active hands drove a highly positive two-way impact.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.3
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 23.2m -14.6
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 19.1m
13
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.1

Relentless energy on the offensive glass and high-level hustle metrics anchored a stellar performance. He completely dominated the backup center matchup, generating extra possessions through sheer willpower and active hands. Avoiding cheap fouls allowed him to stay on the floor and maximize his disruptive defensive presence.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +4.7
Defense +3.7
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 19.1m -12.1
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.4

Despite a sharp drop in his usual scoring volume, he found ways to positively influence the game through disciplined perimeter defense. He consistently fought over screens to blow up dribble hand-offs, neutralizing the opponent's secondary actions. Smart shot selection and mistake-free ball handling ensured his minutes were highly productive.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.4
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 14.6m -9.2
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaden Ivey 14.4m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Limited minutes restricted his rhythm, resulting in a slightly negative overall outing. His inability to navigate screens at the point of attack allowed straight-line drives that compromised the defensive shell. A couple of careless transition turnovers further depressed his value despite decent shooting efficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +45.7
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.8
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 14.4m -9.2
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

Made the most of a brief rotation cameo by executing his role with flawless efficiency. A timely backdoor cut in the second quarter showcased his high offensive IQ and understanding of spacing. He provided sturdy point-of-attack defense without gambling, yielding a solid net positive in limited action.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -34.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 8.5m -5.4
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0