Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
NYK lead MIA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MIA 2P — 3P —
NYK 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 172 attempts

MIA MIA Shot-making Δ

Powell 7/17 -1.0
Ware 11/15 +9.5
Jaquez Jr. 9/15 +3.3
Adebayo 4/11 -3.2
Mitchell 5/8 +3.3
Wiggins 2/8 -3.0
Fontecchio Hard 1/6 -3.4
Smith 2/4 +0.7
Jakučionis Hard 0/3 -3.1

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Brunson Hard 15/26 +9.6
Bridges Hard 9/14 +9.8
Anunoby 6/12 +0.8
Hart 5/10 +1.3
Kolek 3/6 -1.2
Clarkson Hard 4/5 +4.8
Towns Open 1/5 -3.9
Robinson Open 3/4 +0.4
Diawara Hard 1/3 +0.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MIA
NYK
41/87 Field Goals 47/85
47.1% Field Goal % 55.3%
17/35 3-Pointers 20/38
48.6% 3-Point % 52.6%
26/35 Free Throws 18/21
74.3% Free Throw % 85.7%
61.0% True Shooting % 70.0%
56 Total Rebounds 42
12 Offensive 4
33 Defensive 32
26 Assists 28
2.36 Assist/TO Ratio 2.15
11 Turnovers 12
5 Steals 7
1 Blocks 3
14 Fouls 25
46 Points in Paint 46
10 Fast Break Pts 15
16 Points off TOs 12
24 Second Chance Pts 7
41 Bench Points 28
10 Largest Lead 11
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jalen Brunson
47 PTS · 3 REB · 8 AST · 38.2 MIN
+38.9
2
Kel'el Ware
28 PTS · 19 REB · 0 AST · 34.5 MIN
+34.02
3
Norman Powell
22 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 35.2 MIN
+19.91
4
Mikal Bridges
24 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 40.1 MIN
+17.94
5
Josh Hart
13 PTS · 10 REB · 5 AST · 33.3 MIN
+17.71
6
Jaime Jaquez Jr.
23 PTS · 0 REB · 5 AST · 33.6 MIN
+16.67
7
Mitchell Robinson
9 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 22.4 MIN
+16.49
8
Dru Smith
9 PTS · 0 REB · 3 AST · 17.8 MIN
+11.23
9
OG Anunoby
18 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 33.5 MIN
+7.34
10
Davion Mitchell
13 PTS · 2 REB · 8 AST · 31.1 MIN
+7.06
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:03 NYK shot clock Team TURNOVER 125–132
Q4 0:27 J. Jaquez Jr. driving floating Jump Shot (23 PTS) 125–132
Q4 0:33 J. Brunson Free Throw 2 of 2 (47 PTS) 123–132
Q4 0:33 J. Brunson Free Throw 1 of 2 (46 PTS) 123–131
Q4 0:33 D. Mitchell take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Brunson 2 FT) 123–130
Q4 0:34 D. Mitchell 25' 3PT (13 PTS) (J. Jaquez Jr. 5 AST) 123–130
Q4 0:44 O. Anunoby 15' pullup Jump Shot (18 PTS) (J. Hart 5 AST) 120–130
Q4 1:02 J. Jaquez Jr. 6' turnaround fadeaway Jump Shot (21 PTS) 120–128
Q4 1:13 K. Ware REBOUND (Off:6 Def:13) 118–128
Q4 1:15 MISS J. Brunson driving floating bank Shot 118–128
Q4 1:34 J. Brunson flagrant Free Throw 3 of 3 (45 PTS) 118–128
Q4 1:34 J. Brunson flagrant Free Throw 2 of 3 (44 PTS) 118–127
Q4 1:34 J. Brunson flagrant Free Throw 1 of 3 (43 PTS) 118–126
Q4 1:34 N. Powell flagrant-type-1 personal FOUL (2 PF) (Brunson 3 FT) 118–125
Q4 1:51 K. Towns REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 118–125

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

NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 40.1m
24
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.9

Scorching catch-and-shoot execution masked underlying issues with defensive miscommunications and poor screen navigation. Even with a brilliant offensive rhythm, his inability to string together crucial stops against dribble penetration kept his overall impact effectively neutral.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 6/7 (85.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +0.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.1m
Scoring +20.3
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +7.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Brunson 38.2m
47
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+38.7

An absolute masterclass in pick-and-roll manipulation kept drop defenders constantly off balance and generated massive offensive momentum. His sheer scoring gravity completely bent the defensive scheme, opening up weak-side passing lanes and driving a dominant positive impact.

Shooting
FG 15/26 (57.7%)
3PT 6/13 (46.2%)
FT 11/11 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.2%
USG% 34.5%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Scoring +38.9
Creation +4.1
Shot Making +10.7
Hustle +0.9
Defense -4.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S OG Anunoby 33.5m
18
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.1

Locking down the perimeter with elite lateral movement was completely overshadowed by disjointed offensive execution and forced passes into traffic. His inability to fluidly connect the half-court offense resulted in empty possessions that dragged his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.4%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Scoring +12.8
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S Josh Hart 33.3m
13
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.8

Constantly pushing the pace off opponent misses, his elite transition playmaking drove a highly positive impact. A distinct knack for securing long rebounds and immediately initiating the break consistently caught the opposing defense backpedaling.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Scoring +9.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +5.9
Defense +0.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.5

An extreme reluctance to shoot allowed the defense to aggressively double the guards, completely stalling the team's half-court sets. This passive offensive approach tanked his overall value, overshadowing a solid effort protecting the defensive glass.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Scoring -2.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +7.6
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -8.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

Suffocating rim protection altered numerous attempts in the paint, anchoring a highly successful defensive stint. On the other end, his vertical spacing and elite screen-setting created massive driving corridors that fueled the team's offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.6%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Tyler Kolek 22.2m
6
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.5

Struggles to orchestrate the offense against intense ball pressure completely unraveled his otherwise solid hustle metrics. An inability to cleanly initiate sets led to stagnant possessions, allowing the defense to dictate the tempo and force rushed decisions.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +34.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

Opponents consistently targeted him in switch actions, bleeding points that entirely negated his quick-burst offensive production. While his isolation scoring was smooth, his tendency to die on screens made him a glaring defensive liability.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.4

Quick defensive rotations during a brief cameo helped maintain the team's structural integrity. Hitting a timely perimeter shot and avoiding major rotational mistakes allowed him to survive his minutes with a slightly positive impact.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Norman Powell 35.2m
22
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.9

A heavy diet of contested pull-up jumpers limited his offensive ceiling, even as his aggressive rim-runs kept the defense backpedaling. Surprisingly robust defensive metrics ultimately pushed him into positive territory, driven largely by disciplined weak-side rotations and timely closeouts.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +0.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Scoring +14.0
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kel'el Ware 34.5m
28
pts
19
reb
0
ast
Impact
+40.3

Pristine shot selection and confident catch-and-shoot execution from the perimeter completely warped the opponent's defensive rotations. By drawing the opposing rim protector out of the paint, he opened up massive driving lanes while simultaneously delivering a staggering scoring surge.

Shooting
FG 11/15 (73.3%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.2%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +24.2
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +6.3
Hustle +22.2
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bam Adebayo 33.6m
14
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Offensive stagnation heavily weighed down his overall impact, as he repeatedly forced contested mid-range jumpers against set defenses. His inability to facilitate from the high post bogged down half-court execution, completely negating his otherwise solid weak-side defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +11.4
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Davion Mitchell 31.1m
13
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-8.2

Hidden negatives like poor transition defense and costly live-ball turnovers dragged his net impact deeply into the red despite a smooth offensive flow. His inability to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack allowed opposing guards to consistently collapse the defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Andrew Wiggins 24.4m
7
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.6

Struggles to convert open catch-and-shoot opportunities suppressed his offensive value and allowed defenders to sag into the paint. However, his relentless point-of-attack defense and high-effort closeouts kept him near neutral, effectively neutralizing his direct matchup on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
23
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.3

Excellent footwork in the post allowed him to consistently punish mismatches and generate high-percentage looks in the paint. While his isolation execution was superb, occasional rotational breakdowns on the defensive end kept his overall impact relatively modest.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +17.8
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dru Smith 17.8m
9
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.5

Maximizing limited touches with smart baseline cuts and decisive ball-swings provided a sudden spark for the second unit. Active hands in the passing lanes consistently disrupted the opponent's rhythm, turning deflections into easy transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.4

Repeatedly missing wide-open corner looks stalled offensive momentum and allowed the defense to pack the paint. His inability to punish defensive closeouts rendered him a spacing liability, severely dragging down a lineup that desperately needed perimeter gravity.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 38.5%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.8

Hesitancy on the ball allowed defenders to sag off, completely clogging the driving lanes for his teammates during a brief stint. Rushing his few offensive touches highlighted his struggle to adjust to the frantic pace of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -28.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Scoring -0.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0