GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Andrew Wiggins 30.6m
28
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+22.0

Searing perimeter shooting and relentless two-way hustle resulted in a dominant, game-altering impact score. His ability to lock down the opposing wing while simultaneously catching fire from deep completely broke the opposing team's defensive game plan.

Shooting
FG 12/16 (75.0%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +29.3
Hustle +5.2
Defense +7.3
Raw total +41.8
Avg player in 30.6m -19.8
Impact +22.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kel'el Ware 28.5m
15
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.7

Vertical spacing and elite rim protection fueled a massive surge in his overall effectiveness. Dominating the interior by catching lobs in traffic and altering countless shots in the paint, he consistently forced opponents into tough mid-range pull-ups.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +9.2
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 28.5m -18.3
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
S Norman Powell 28.4m
23
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.8

High-volume rim pressure and exceptional hustle metrics overcame a poor shooting night to keep his impact highly positive. Even when his jumper wasn't falling, constant downhill attacks drew fouls and collapsed the defense to create secondary opportunities.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +5.5
Defense +8.2
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 28.4m -18.4
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Pelle Larsson 27.4m
16
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.5

Flawless decision-making and connective passing drove a highly positive two-way performance. He consistently made the extra pass against rotating defenses, turning good looks into great ones while maintaining his own elite scoring efficiency.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 83.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +24.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.4
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 27.4m -17.7
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Davion Mitchell 19.2m
0
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.3

Elite point-of-attack defense and hustle were entirely negated by a disastrous offensive showing. His inability to hit wide-open perimeter shots allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint, completely stalling out the half-court offense during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +6.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 19.2m -12.4
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
28
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.7

Surgical precision in the mid-range and post-up situations drove an elite positive impact. Relentlessly punishing smaller defenders on switches, he used elite footwork to generate highly efficient looks without turning the ball over.

Shooting
FG 11/15 (73.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.4%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +26.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.2
Raw total +34.2
Avg player in 28.6m -18.5
Impact +15.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
19
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+8.1

Dynamic playmaking from the forward position and timely perimeter shooting anchored a highly productive shift. Consistently pushing the pace off defensive rebounds, he created advantage situations in early transition that kept the defense scrambling.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +63.1
+/- +35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +8.7
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 24.6m -16.0
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Dru Smith 23.4m
5
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.6

A lack of offensive creation and missed rotations dragged his rating deep into the negative. Struggling to stay in front of quicker guards on the perimeter led to defensive breakdowns that completely overshadowed his slight uptick in scoring.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +31.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.4
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 23.4m -15.0
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

Poor shot selection from the perimeter tanked his offensive value despite solid defensive metrics. Repeatedly settling for early-clock, contested jumpers rather than moving the ball consistently killed the team's offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.6
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 22.1m -14.2
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

A brief appearance yielded a slightly positive impact due to responsible defensive positioning. Rather than forcing the issue offensively, he simply spaced the floor and executed the defensive scheme without making costly mistakes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 3.5m -2.2
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.1

Maximizing his garbage-time minutes, high-energy cuts and decisive finishing drove a quick positive spike. A perfectly timed backdoor cut for an easy bucket highlighted a short but highly efficient stint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +175.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 2.1m -1.3
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

A rushed perimeter shot in a fleeting appearance kept his impact essentially neutral. Failing to make a discernible mark on the game, he functioned purely as a placeholder during the final minute of action.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 1.7m -1.1
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
25
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

High scoring volume masked a deeply negative overall impact driven by tunnel vision and ball-stopping tendencies. A complete lack of playmaking allowed the opposing defense to easily load up on his drives, stalling out the offensive flow during key stretches.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.7%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg -21.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 34.8m -22.5
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Andrew Nembhard 34.3m
15
pts
3
reb
16
ast
Impact
-9.4

Elite facilitation numbers were completely offset by poor perimeter shooting and defensive bleed at the point of attack. Opponents consistently went under his screens to dare him into taking low-percentage jumpers, resulting in empty possessions that fueled transition opportunities the other way.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.1%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 34.3m -22.1
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Pascal Siakam 33.7m
33
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.7

An offensive masterclass defined by elite shot selection and mismatch hunting drove his massive positive impact. He punished smaller defenders in isolation and knocked down perimeter looks at a high clip, forcing the defense into impossible rotation decisions.

Shooting
FG 14/21 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.0%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +25.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.6
Raw total +33.4
Avg player in 33.7m -21.7
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jay Huff 21.9m
11
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.7

Strong defensive positioning and timely rim contests anchored a highly positive two-way rating. He capitalized on high-percentage drop-offs in the paint while generating crucial stops as a drop defender to swing momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.3
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 21.9m -14.1
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Johnny Furphy 20.8m
9
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Efficient finishing on the interior was completely undermined by his inability to stretch the floor. Defenders routinely sagged off him on the perimeter, clogging driving lanes and stalling the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -28.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 20.8m -13.5
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.9

A near-invisible offensive showing tanked his value after a string of highly efficient performances. His extreme reluctance to engage as a scorer allowed his matchup to freely roam and play free safety, severely handicapping the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total -2.5
Avg player in 20.6m -13.4
Impact -15.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

Over-reliance on the three-ball dragged down his efficiency and overall impact score. Settling for heavily contested perimeter looks rather than attacking closeouts bailed out the defense on multiple critical possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -49.7
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 19.2m -12.5
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
4
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.9

A steep drop-off in offensive aggression resulted in a highly negative rating. Without his usual downhill pressure to collapse the defense, the second unit's offense stagnated into predictable, low-efficiency isolation sets.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -49.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.1
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 13.7m -9.0
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.2

Complete offensive invisibility combined with poor defensive positioning created a massive negative swing during his stint. Opponents repeatedly targeted him on switches, bleeding points while he failed to offer any counter-punch on the other end.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -35.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense -8.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.4
Raw total -8.6
Avg player in 11.8m -7.6
Impact -16.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Tony Bradley 11.3m
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Limited court time yielded a negative impact due to slow defensive rotations in pick-and-roll situations. Opposing guards routinely exploited his deep drop coverage, generating uncontested floaters that pulled his overall rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -28.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.2
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 11.3m -7.3
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Micah Potter 10.8m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

Poor finishing around the basket neutralized his otherwise solid rebounding and hustle metrics. Missing multiple high-value looks in the paint prevented him from capitalizing on the offensive gravity created by the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -59.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 10.8m -7.0
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kam Jones 3.5m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Forced shots during a brief stint cratered his efficiency and kept his impact slightly negative. Trying to do too much in limited minutes, he jacked up contested jumpers early in the shot clock instead of initiating the offense.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +0.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 3.5m -2.2
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Active defensive hands and solid rotational awareness kept his head above water despite failing to score. He made his brief mark by blowing up a dribble handoff that completely disrupted the opponent's late-game execution.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 3.5m -2.2
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0