GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Norman Powell 35.1m
17
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.3

A steady diet of forced, contested jumpers early in the shot clock tanked his offensive value. His aggressive closeouts and high-energy hustle plays on the defensive end weren't quite enough to make up for the wasted offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.3%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -33.8
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +5.4
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 35.1m -17.6
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Bam Adebayo 34.1m
9
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.6

Forcing contested shots in the paint dragged down his overall efficiency and stunted the team's momentum. He remained an absolute terror as a help-side rim protector, but his inability to finish through contact negated his defensive brilliance.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 36.5%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -27.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.9
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 34.1m -17.1
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Andrew Wiggins 32.5m
14
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

Floating on the perimeter rather than attacking the rim limited his offensive ceiling during key stretches. Despite solid individual defensive metrics, his passive approach to securing loose balls allowed opponents to extend crucial possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -43.5
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 32.5m -16.3
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Davion Mitchell 27.1m
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-16.1

Getting continually blown by at the point of attack caused the entire defensive shell to collapse. Compounding his struggles on that end, he bricked multiple wide-open corner threes, making him a severe liability on both sides of the ball.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -34.6
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense -4.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total -2.6
Avg player in 27.1m -13.5
Impact -16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kel'el Ware 21.1m
5
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.4

Missed bunnies around the basket were completely overshadowed by his tremendous defensive positioning. He consistently altered shots in the restricted area and controlled the defensive glass, turning missed opponent layups into immediate transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -47.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +7.2
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 21.1m -10.5
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
21
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.1

Pounding the ball into isolation sets led to a stagnant offense, even if he managed to hit difficult shots. His tendency to lose his man on backdoor cuts surrendered easy layups that quickly erased the value of his own scoring output.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.6%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 35.7m -17.9
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

Failing to execute offensive sets efficiently resulted in dead-end possessions and a negative overall rating. While he showed flashes of disruptive perimeter defense, his inability to threaten the defense off the dribble allowed opponents to completely ignore him.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 27.5m -13.9
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Dru Smith 16.5m
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.0

Capitalizing on brief minutes, he provided an immediate spark by attacking closeouts with decisive drives. His disciplined ball pressure disrupted the opponent's secondary unit, swinging the momentum firmly in his team's favor during his stint.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.0%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 16.5m -8.2
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Active hands in the passing lanes and solid weak-side rotations drove a surprisingly positive stint. He missed his perimeter looks, but his commitment to crashing the glass and defending without fouling kept the second unit stable.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 8.7m -4.3
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Saw only a handful of seconds at the end of a quarter, leaving no time to establish any rhythm. A quick defensive breakdown during this brief cameo resulted in a negligible negative score.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Inserted for a single late-game possession that yielded no meaningful statistical events. The fractional negative impact stems purely from being on the floor during an opponent's quick score.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 35.9m
27
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.1

Relentless rim pressure and high-percentage finishing fueled a massive positive swing. He consistently bullied his matchups in the paint, generating high-value looks while anchoring the defense with timely rotations.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 77.1%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +30.9
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +20.5
Hustle +4.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +29.1
Avg player in 35.9m -18.0
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
18
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.2

A brutal night shooting from deep nearly erased his otherwise solid two-way contributions. He salvaged a neutral impact by aggressively jumping passing lanes and pushing the pace in transition to generate easier looks for teammates.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +39.2
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.5
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 35.5m -17.8
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Brandon Ingram 29.2m
12
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.4

Poor shot selection on contested mid-range jumpers severely limited his offensive efficiency. Despite holding his own defensively on the wing, his inability to convert in isolation sets created empty possessions that dragged down his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +31.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 29.2m -14.6
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
14
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+7.3

Elite floor-spacing from the frontcourt opened up driving lanes for the entire offense. His quick decision-making out of pick-and-pop actions kept the defense scrambling, maximizing his value far beyond his individual scoring.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +40.1
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 27.5m -13.8
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ochai Agbaji 21.2m
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Defensive intensity on the perimeter kept his baseline afloat, but offensive invisibility ultimately hurt the team's spacing. Continually passing up open looks allowed defenders to sag off, stalling out half-court sets during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +29.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.1
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 21.2m -10.6
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+14.7

Anchoring the paint with phenomenal rim protection drove a massive positive rating. He completely shut down interior driving angles, while his relentless effort on the offensive glass created crucial second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +9.7
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 24.8m -12.4
Impact +14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.9

Hesitancy on the wing led to stalled possessions and forced late-clock heaves. He provided some value as an on-ball defender, but his lack of off-ball movement made him too easy to guard in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 19.6m -9.9
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 19.0m
8
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.3

Struggles to navigate ball screens at the point of attack allowed opposing guards to dictate the tempo. While he hit a couple of timely perimeter shots, his inability to contain dribble penetration consistently put the backline rotation in jeopardy.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.2
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 19.0m -9.6
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.3

Flawless execution as a spot-up threat punished defensive breakdowns and stretched the floor beautifully. Capitalizing on every catch-and-shoot opportunity provided a massive jolt of efficiency to the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 137.5%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +44.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 15.4m -7.7
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Gradey Dick 11.9m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Clanking multiple wide-open perimeter looks severely damaged the team's offensive rhythm. He managed to mitigate some of the damage by executing flawless defensive rotations, but his shooting slump remains a glaring liability.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -33.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.6
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 11.9m -5.8
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1