GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 34.2m
12
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.2

Offensive struggles at the rim and a sharp decline in scoring volume resulted in a disastrous overall net rating. Even his typically sturdy defensive anchoring wasn't enough to rescue a performance marred by inefficient finishing and stalled half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.2%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.9
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 34.2m -19.3
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Davion Mitchell 33.8m
14
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.8

Despite knocking down shots efficiently and flying around for loose balls, his overall impact cratered due to poor defensive metrics. Opposing guards consistently exploited him in isolation, completely negating his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +6.9
Defense -0.1
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 33.8m -19.0
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kel'el Ware 29.4m
11
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Capitalizing on high-percentage looks inside allowed him to maintain a positive overall impact. His steady rim-running and disciplined shot selection provided a reliable anchor for the second unit's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.7
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 29.4m -16.5
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 70.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Andrew Wiggins 28.0m
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.9

Clanking a high volume of contested jumpers severely damaged his offensive efficiency and dragged his total impact into the negative. He failed to replicate his recent hot shooting, while offering almost no defensive resistance to offset the missed shots.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.4
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 28.0m -15.7
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 90.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Norman Powell 24.6m
21
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.0

Aggressive dribble penetration and foul-drawing masked a somewhat mediocre shooting night from the floor. He supplemented his reliable scoring punch with surprisingly stout perimeter defense to secure a solidly positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 24.6m -13.9
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.7

Finding his offensive rhythm after a scoreless outing, his efficient interior finishing wasn't quite enough to offset defensive bleeding during his shifts. Opponents capitalized on transition opportunities while he was on the floor, dragging his final rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -36.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 27.9m -15.7
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.5

A passive offensive approach and defensive lapses combined to sink his net impact during the reserve shifts. He struggled to leave any meaningful imprint on the game, continuing a recent trend of ineffective perimeter play.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.2
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 17.5m -9.9
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Operating exclusively as a catch-and-shoot threat, his perimeter spacing provided just enough offensive gravity to break out of a recent slump. Strong defensive rotations on the wing ultimately pushed his net impact into positive territory.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -51.1
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.3
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 16.0m -8.9
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Dru Smith 14.2m
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Chucking up low-quality looks stunted the offense and resulted in a negative overall impact. While he scored more than his recent dismal averages, the poor shot selection outweighed his modest defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 14.2m -8.0
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Relegated to a minor role compared to his recent high-scoring stretch, he still managed to provide a quick, efficient spark. Smart cutting and decisive finishing allowed him to post a positive rating despite the drastically reduced playing time.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +29.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.1
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 9.9m -5.5
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.9

Maximizing a tiny window of playing time, flawless shooting execution generated a massive per-minute impact spike. He capitalized on every touch he received, providing an instant jolt of perfect offense before returning to the bench.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +89.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 4.5m -2.6
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Julius Randle 38.9m
23
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.7

Continuing a highly efficient stretch of basketball, his reliable interior scoring and playmaking anchored the frontcourt attack. Strong defensive positioning and steady rebounding supplemented his offensive output to yield a sturdy positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.9%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.2
Raw total +26.5
Avg player in 38.9m -21.8
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Anthony Edwards 38.3m
33
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.5

Breaking out of a recent shooting slump, an aggressive downhill approach yielded massive dividends for his overall box score impact. Even with a cold perimeter stroke, his relentless rim pressure and secondary playmaking easily masked any outside inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 11/14 (78.6%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg -1.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Offense +21.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.6
Raw total +28.0
Avg player in 38.3m -21.5
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaden McDaniels 33.9m
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.1

A severe drop in offensive aggression torpedoed his overall impact rating, as he completely vanished from the scoring column after a recent hot streak. Despite the offensive disappearing act, his elite defensive metrics and high-motor hustle plays kept him highly disruptive on the other side of the ball.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +6.5
Defense +6.6
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 33.9m -19.1
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Rudy Gobert 32.1m
13
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.0

Dominant rim protection and vertical spacing fueled a highly impactful two-way performance. By converting nearly all of his high-percentage looks around the basket, he maximized his offensive role without forcing bad shots.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +3.6
Defense +8.2
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 32.1m -18.0
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.1

Bricklaying from beyond the arc severely capped his offensive value and dragged his net score into the red. He managed to salvage some utility through sheer effort, generating extra possessions via high-level hustle and perimeter defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +6.0
Defense +5.6
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 31.0m -17.4
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Naz Reid 25.1m
29
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.5

An absolute flamethrower off the bench, his spectacular perimeter efficiency completely broke the game open. This massive offensive surge shattered his recent shooting woes, resulting in a towering overall impact score driven by elite shot-making.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.3%
USG% 35.8%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +24.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.7
Raw total +31.6
Avg player in 25.1m -14.1
Impact +17.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Bones Hyland 20.9m
4
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.7

Forcing up empty perimeter looks completely derailed his offensive value during the second unit's shifts. Without his typical scoring punch to rely on, his overall net rating plummeted despite adequate defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +39.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 20.9m -11.8
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Mike Conley 14.7m
5
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.3

Operating strictly as a stabilizing presence, his low-usage approach yielded a slightly positive return in limited action. He avoided the poor shooting that plagued his recent outings, leaning instead on steady ball movement and timely hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 14.7m -8.4
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Brief spot minutes prevented him from establishing any real rhythm or defensive footprint. The minimal court time resulted in a negligible statistical footprint that leaned slightly negative due to a lack of counting stats.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 5.3m -3.0
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0