Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIA lead SAC lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
SAC 2P — 3P —
MIA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 178 attempts

SAC SAC Shot-making Δ

LaVine Hard 12/24 +7.8
Murray 6/11 +1.6
DeRozan 6/11 +1.3
Raynaud 6/11 +0.1
Westbrook 5/11 -0.2
Clifford Open 7/8 +5.2
Monk Hard 1/7 -5.3
Achiuwa Open 3/5 -0.8
Ellis Hard 1/3 0.0
Eubanks Open 2/2 +1.2

MIA MIA Shot-making Δ

Jaquez Jr. 9/15 +2.4
Fontecchio Hard 8/14 +4.8
Powell 6/14 -2.7
Wiggins 6/10 +3.1
Jović Hard 4/10 -0.7
Adebayo Hard 4/9 -0.9
Smith 1/6 -4.3
Ware Open 2/4 -1.0
Johnson Open 1/2 -0.8
Young Hard 0/1 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
SAC
MIA
49/93 Field Goals 41/85
52.7% Field Goal % 48.2%
14/33 3-Pointers 9/31
42.4% 3-Point % 29.0%
15/21 Free Throws 20/32
71.4% Free Throw % 62.5%
62.1% True Shooting % 56.0%
54 Total Rebounds 52
8 Offensive 11
37 Defensive 30
24 Assists 23
2.18 Assist/TO Ratio 1.77
10 Turnovers 13
11 Steals 5
5 Blocks 4
19 Fouls 17
54 Points in Paint 58
25 Fast Break Pts 11
20 Points off TOs 12
17 Second Chance Pts 22
32 Bench Points 62
28 Largest Lead 3
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Zach LaVine
42 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 39.4 MIN
+33.19
2
Jaime Jaquez Jr.
27 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 35.5 MIN
+17.91
3
DeMar DeRozan
13 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 39.8 MIN
+16.85
4
Keegan Murray
16 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 32.4 MIN
+15.42
5
Simone Fontecchio
20 PTS · 7 REB · 0 AST · 25.6 MIN
+14.66
6
Nique Clifford
15 PTS · 6 REB · 0 AST · 18.0 MIN
+13.13
7
Maxime Raynaud
12 PTS · 10 REB · 1 AST · 25.1 MIN
+12.66
8
Precious Achiuwa
7 PTS · 10 REB · 1 AST · 16.3 MIN
+10.82
9
Kel'el Ware
5 PTS · 6 REB · 0 AST · 29.6 MIN
+10.73
10
Norman Powell
18 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 26.6 MIN
+10.33
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:20 K. Johnson driving Layup (3 PTS) 127–111
Q4 0:25 K. Johnson REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 127–109
Q4 0:28 MISS K. Johnson Free Throw 2 of 2 127–109
Q4 0:28 K. Johnson Free Throw 1 of 2 (1 PTS) 127–109
Q4 0:28 R. Westbrook personal FOUL (3 PF) (Johnson 2 FT) 127–108
Q4 0:29 K. Johnson REBOUND (Off:0 Def:4) 127–108
Q4 0:32 MISS M. Raynaud Hook 127–108
Q4 0:55 D. DeRozan REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 127–108
Q4 0:57 MISS S. Fontecchio 12' driving floating Shot 127–108
Q4 1:13 R. Westbrook fadeaway Jump Shot (12 PTS) (M. Raynaud 1 AST) 127–108
Q4 1:36 J. Jaquez Jr. Free Throw 2 of 2 (27 PTS) 125–108
Q4 1:36 J. Jaquez Jr. Free Throw 1 of 2 (26 PTS) 125–107
Q4 1:36 Z. LaVine personal FOUL (3 PF) (Jaquez Jr. 2 FT) 125–106
Q4 1:44 M. Raynaud Hook (12 PTS) (R. Westbrook 10 AST) 125–106
Q4 2:06 S. Fontecchio putback Layup (20 PTS) 123–106

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Kel'el Ware 29.6m
5
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

Exceptional rim deterrence and verticality highlighted a stellar defensive showing, but an inability to get involved offensively hampered his total rating. He rarely established deep post position, leading to a sharp decline in his usual scoring output. Those empty offensive trips ultimately outweighed the massive value he provided as a defensive anchor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +7.6
Defense +4.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Norman Powell 26.6m
18
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.1

Streaky shot selection from the perimeter yielded a high-volume but moderately inefficient scoring night. While his ability to draw fouls kept the scoreboard ticking, defensive inattentiveness prevented him from securing a higher overall impact score. He served as a necessary offensive engine, though the underlying metrics suggest it was a volatile performance.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -35.0
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense -2.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Andrew Wiggins 26.1m
13
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.8

Defensive lapses on the perimeter and poor closeout angles heavily dragged down his overall impact metric. Even though he found a comfortable rhythm offensively with efficient shot selection, he gave those points right back on the other end. A failure to consistently fight through off-ball screens allowed his matchups to generate easy looks.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg -46.5
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Bam Adebayo 24.6m
9
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.3

A noticeable dip in offensive aggression limited his overall influence, as he frequently deferred to guards rather than attacking the mismatch. He salvaged a slightly positive impact through active rim protection and timely weak-side rotations. Still, the lack of his usual scoring punch left the frontcourt offense looking somewhat disjointed.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -29.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +8.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Dru Smith 19.1m
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.2

Tenacious on-ball pressure generated solid hustle metrics, but his offensive limitations severely handicapped the lineup. Clanking several wide-open perimeter looks allowed the defense to completely ignore him and pack the paint. The resulting spacing issues negated the gritty defensive work he put in during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -39.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
27
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+13.9

Masterful footwork in the mid-post allowed him to systematically dismantle smaller defenders throughout the contest. This scoring surge vastly exceeded his recent averages, providing a crucial offensive lifeline when the primary actions broke down. He paired this efficient shot creation with sturdy positional rebounding to secure a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 8/12 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Scoring +20.9
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +6.7
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-12.3

Careless ball security and forced passes into tight windows cratered his overall impact despite decent playmaking totals. He settled for too many contested looks from beyond the arc, bailing out the defense on multiple possessions. While his length was disruptive on the defensive end, the sheer volume of offensive mistakes proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -10.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
20
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.9

Catch-and-shoot mastery defined his breakout performance, punishing the defense every time they lost him in transition. This unexpected scoring explosion completely altered the geometry of the floor, pulling rim protectors out to the perimeter. His constant off-ball movement generated high-quality looks that drove a highly efficient offensive rating.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring +14.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.9

A tendency to get caught out of position on defensive rotations led to several easy backdoor cuts for the opposition. He floated on the perimeter offensively without actively screening or cutting, which bogged down the half-court execution. This overall lack of physical engagement resulted in a surprisingly steep negative impact score during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.9%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +35.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.1

Struggled to find the flow of the game during a brief stint, failing to bend the defense or create meaningful advantages. While he competed hard at the point of attack to generate a positive defensive score, his total lack of offensive production stalled the second unit. He was ultimately too passive when presented with driving opportunities.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
SAC Sacramento Kings
S DeMar DeRozan 39.8m
13
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+11.0

A surprising lack of offensive aggression defined his night, as he passed up his usual midrange spots to defer to teammates. Despite generating solid defensive value and decent hustle metrics, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to an uncharacteristic drop in scoring volume. The inability to consistently pressure the rim left the offense stagnant during his heavy minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +6.7
Defense +1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Zach LaVine 39.4m
42
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+33.9

An absolute flamethrower from beyond the arc, his elite shot-making single-handedly broke the opponent's defensive schemes. The sheer gravity of his perimeter shooting created massive driving lanes, resulting in an astronomical box impact score. He paired this offensive explosion with surprisingly disciplined closeouts on the other end to round out a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 8/13 (61.5%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 72.8%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Scoring +32.8
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +9.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Keegan Murray 32.4m
16
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.7

Relentless perimeter contests and active hands in the passing lanes drove a highly positive defensive rating. He capitalized on spot-up opportunities from deep, providing excellent floor spacing that opened up driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. This two-way stability anchored the wing rotation and kept the team's momentum steady throughout the middle quarters.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
12
pts
1
reb
10
ast
Impact
-7.7

Frenetic energy yielded strong defensive and hustle metrics, but erratic decision-making in transition severely undercut his overall value. A tendency to force difficult passes into traffic likely led to empty possessions that fueled opponent runs. While his playmaking volume was high, the lack of perimeter gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +25.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +7.3
Turnovers -14.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 6
S Maxime Raynaud 25.1m
12
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.4

Continuing a highly efficient stretch of finishing around the basket, his interior presence was a stabilizing force. He consistently sealed off his man to secure crucial second-chance opportunities, driving a strong positive impact score. That reliable paint production forced the defense to collapse, easing the burden on the perimeter creators.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +10.8
Defense -2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
15
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.7

Exceptional off-ball cutting allowed him to exploit sleeping defenders for highly efficient finishes at the rim. This opportunistic scoring punch provided a massive spark off the bench, significantly outperforming his recent offensive baselines. He complemented the hyper-efficient scoring with disciplined positional defense that kept the secondary unit thriving.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Scoring +14.5
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +6.7
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Malik Monk 17.4m
3
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-22.1

A brutal shooting slump completely derailed his offensive rhythm, resulting in a steep negative impact score. He repeatedly forced heavily contested looks early in the shot clock, short-circuiting several promising possessions. Compounding the offensive woes, he struggled to navigate screens on the defensive end, allowing easy dribble penetration.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 19.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring -2.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense -6.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.7

Dominating the glass on both ends of the floor, his physicality dictated the terms of engagement inside the paint. He maintained his streak of highly efficient finishing by strictly taking high-percentage looks near the basket. This rugged interior play anchored the second unit and generated valuable extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +8.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Drew Eubanks 10.8m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Operating strictly as a rim-runner, he provided a brief but steadying presence in the interior during the backup minutes. Flawless shot selection ensured he maximized his limited touches without disrupting the offensive flow. However, a lack of overall defensive disruption kept his total impact hovering just above neutral.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Keon Ellis 9.0m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

Smothering point-of-attack defense defined his brief stint on the floor, completely disrupting the opponent's offensive initiation. Those relentless ball-pressure tactics translated into a massive defensive rating despite the limited playing time. While his scoring output dipped significantly from his recent average, his energy shifted the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0