GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Andrew Wiggins 32.0m
22
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

Slashing aggressively to the rim and finishing through contact defined a highly efficient two-way performance. He supplemented his scoring spike with active perimeter defense, consistently navigating screens to bother opposing wings. His willingness to attack closeouts kept the defense in constant rotation.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg +48.0
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +3.7
Defense +3.8
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 32.0m -20.8
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 21.1%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
S Norman Powell 31.9m
30
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.1

Blistering perimeter efficiency and relentless off-ball movement fueled a massive offensive surge well above his recent baseline. He consistently punished defensive miscommunications, finding soft spots on the perimeter for clean catch-and-shoot looks. This elite shot-making carried the second unit's scoring load.

Shooting
FG 12/18 (66.7%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +45.2
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +23.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +0.4
Raw total +27.8
Avg player in 31.9m -20.7
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Bam Adebayo 31.6m
27
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+20.7

An absolute masterclass in defensive versatility and shocking perimeter shot-making drove a dominant overall impact. Stepping out to drain a barrage of deep shots completely broke the opposing frontcourt's drop coverage scheme. He paired this offensive expansion with elite rim deterrence and switchability on the other end.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.5%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +45.2
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +24.9
Hustle +5.2
Defense +11.2
Raw total +41.3
Avg player in 31.6m -20.6
Impact +20.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Davion Mitchell 31.0m
16
pts
3
reb
12
ast
Impact
+8.8

Flawless shooting execution and elite playmaking vision engineered a brilliant two-way impact score. He relentlessly pressured the point of attack, generating massive hustle numbers by diving for loose balls and blowing up dribble hand-offs. His ability to perfectly balance scoring and distribution dictated the entire tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 133.3%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +55.1
+/- +37
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +6.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 31.0m -20.2
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tyler Herro 29.3m
22
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

High-level shot creation and perimeter accuracy kept the offense humming, but his overall impact was neutralized by defensive limitations. Opponents actively hunted him in pick-and-roll switches, bleeding away the value of his scoring output. He provided necessary spacing, but the two-way trade-off resulted in a nearly flat net rating.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 67.4%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.7
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 29.3m -19.1
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.9

Forcing contested looks in the paint led to a brutal finishing night that severely damaged his overall impact. The resulting empty possessions fueled opponent transition opportunities, negating his otherwise solid effort on the offensive glass. His inability to find an offensive rhythm created a noticeable drag on the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg -29.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 20.6m -13.4
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
7
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.9

Clanking a high volume of perimeter looks completely stalled the offense and dragged his impact score down. Although he competed hard on the margins with solid hustle and defensive positioning, his inability to punish defensive closeouts allowed opponents to pack the paint. The poor shot quality ultimately outweighed his energetic floor game.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 20.5m -13.3
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kel'el Ware 16.4m
0
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

Failing to convert on his limited interior touches rendered him an offensive non-factor, dragging his net score deep into the red. While he managed to secure the defensive glass effectively, his inability to command defensive attention clogged the driving lanes for his teammates. The complete lack of scoring gravity severely hampered the half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -45.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 16.4m -10.6
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Dru Smith 16.1m
7
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.3

A massive spike in scoring aggression provided an unexpected offensive lift, though his overall impact remained slightly negative due to rotational breakdowns. He shined defensively by navigating screens and applying heavy ball pressure. However, a few ill-advised perimeter jumpers prevented him from securing a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -48.8
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.8
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 16.1m -10.4
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

Maintained his streak of hyper-efficient shooting by capitalizing perfectly on his limited opportunities. Despite a sharp drop in overall volume, his pristine shot selection ensured he remained a net positive during his brief rotational stint. He spaced the floor effectively without forcing unnecessary action.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 133.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 7.8m -5.1
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Barely saw the floor in a fleeting garbage-time appearance that offered no statistical production. The microscopic sample size prevented him from establishing any sort of rhythm or impact on the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.9m -0.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Managed to squeeze out a marginally positive impact during a less-than-one-minute cameo by flashing active hands on defense. Rushing a pair of shots in transition highlighted a frantic offensive approach, but his defensive energy offset the misses.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 66.7%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.9m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 0.9m -0.6
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

A brief, ineffective stint at the end of the rotation resulted in a minor negative impact score. He hoisted one unsuccessful shot and failed to register any meaningful defensive or hustle statistics during his fleeting time on the court.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.9m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 0.9m -0.5
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAC LA Clippers
S Ivica Zubac 30.6m
16
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.1

Controlling the interior with physical drop-coverage positioning drove a highly positive defensive impact rating. He consistently punished switches in the paint, though his overall net score was slightly muted by the team's broader perimeter rotation struggles. His ability to secure contested rebounds anchored the half-court defense.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.4
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 30.6m -19.8
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 47.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kawhi Leonard 30.4m
36
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+20.0

Elite two-way dominance fueled a massive positive impact, highlighted by a sharp uptick in scoring aggression compared to his recent baseline. His pristine shot selection and heavy defensive engagement allowed him to control the game on both ends. The sheer volume of high-quality looks he generated completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +26.7
Hustle +4.5
Defense +8.6
Raw total +39.8
Avg player in 30.4m -19.8
Impact +20.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 25.8m
12
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.0

A massive, unexpected scoring surge completely flipped his usual offensive profile and drove a highly efficient shift. He paired this sudden scoring punch with his trademark point-of-attack defense to generate transition opportunities. Capitalizing on defensive lapses allowed him to punish closeouts effectively.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.6
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 25.8m -16.8
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S John Collins 25.2m
10
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

A sudden dip in finishing efficiency snapped a streak of highly accurate shooting performances, capping his offensive ceiling. However, he salvaged a positive overall impact through active defensive rotations and consistent effort on 50/50 balls. His willingness to do the dirty work kept him above water despite the clunky jumper.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 25.2m -16.5
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S James Harden 19.9m
11
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.4

Uncharacteristic passivity and a lack of dribble penetration resulted in a steep negative impact drop. He failed to bend the defense, settling for contested perimeter looks rather than forcing the issue at the rim. This offensive stagnation stalled the team's momentum during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.6%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -84.8
+/- -39
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 19.9m -12.8
Impact -12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
Kobe Sanders 26.0m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.8

Forcing the issue from the perimeter completely derailed his impact, as a barrage of missed deep shots tanked his usually elite efficiency. While he found ways to increase his scoring volume, the poor shot selection created long rebounds and transition opportunities for the opponent. His inability to finish in traffic further compounded the negative swing.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 26.0m -16.9
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Perfect shooting from beyond the arc was entirely overshadowed by defensive bleed and poor rotational timing. He struggled to stay in front of quicker wings, allowing straight-line drives that compromised the defensive shell. Consequently, his minutes featured significant negative swings despite the flawless offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.5
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 20.2m -13.1
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Chris Paul 14.8m
8
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.3

Pacing issues and a lack of defensive resistance at the point of attack dragged his overall impact into the red. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, forcing the frontcourt into difficult rotation scenarios. The offense frequently bogged down into late-clock isolation sets while he was orchestrating.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 14.8m -9.5
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Christie 14.8m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.4

A disastrous shooting performance completely cratered his value, as he failed to convert on multiple wide-open looks. This offensive black hole allowed defenders to aggressively cheat off him and clog the paint. Even a respectable effort in weak-side defensive rotations couldn't salvage the massive spacing issues he caused.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense -5.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 14.8m -9.5
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Kobe Brown 14.6m
2
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.7

An abrupt offensive disappearing act snapped a highly efficient four-game stretch, severely limiting his scoring gravity. Fortunately, he remained highly engaged on the other end, using his size to disrupt passing lanes and generate a strong defensive score. This gritty effort on the margins prevented his quiet shooting night from becoming a liability.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -55.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.1
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 14.6m -9.5
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Efficient finishing around the rim was negated by a tendency to get lost in pick-and-roll coverage. Opposing guards repeatedly targeted his drop coverage, exploiting the space he conceded in the mid-range. This defensive vulnerability resulted in a net-negative stint despite his reliable hands in the dunker spot.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -26.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 12.4m -8.1
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.8

Maximized a brief rotational stint by playing physical, downhill basketball to generate trips to the foul line. His aggressive closeouts disrupted the opponent's rhythm during a crucial second-half stretch. He proved highly effective as an energy sparkplug despite the limited run.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +20.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.4
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 5.5m -3.6
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0