GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Davion Mitchell 29.3m
9
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.8

Point-of-attack pressure was solid as usual (+5.8 Def), but his inability to penetrate the paint or finish inside crippled the half-court offense. Costly live-ball turnovers and a lack of rim pressure allowed the opposition to completely ignore him when he drove.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +43.5
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.8
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 29.3m -17.5
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Bam Adebayo 28.8m
12
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.7

Forcing heavily contested shots in the paint ruined his offensive efficiency and allowed the defense to set up in transition. While his switchability and rim deterrence remained elite (+5.5 Def), the sheer volume of empty possessions he generated as an offensive hub ultimately cost the team.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +37.9
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.5
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 28.8m -17.1
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Norman Powell 28.8m
34
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+22.3

An absolute masterclass in perimeter shot-making completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme. Catching fire from beyond the arc stretched the floor to its breaking point, and he surprisingly supplemented the scoring barrage with active closeouts (+4.0 Def) to seal a dominant outing.

Shooting
FG 11/15 (73.3%)
3PT 9/12 (75.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.4%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +37.9
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +31.9
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.0
Raw total +39.5
Avg player in 28.8m -17.2
Impact +22.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Andrew Wiggins 28.4m
10
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.5

Stifling on-ball defense against primary creators (+6.8 Def) was overshadowed by offensive stagnation. Poor spacing from missed perimeter looks and a tendency to stall the ball in the half-court dragged his overall impact firmly into the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.8
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 28.4m -16.9
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S Kel'el Ware 24.6m
16
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.5

Dominating the interior physically, he created massive second-chance opportunities through sheer effort and positioning. His ability to anchor the drop coverage (+5.8 Def) while finishing efficiently through contact resulted in a breakout two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +3.3
Defense +5.8
Raw total +25.3
Avg player in 24.6m -14.8
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
19
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.6

Wreaking absolute havoc as a help-side disruptor, his defensive metrics (+14.5 Def) skyrocketed due to blown-up pick-and-rolls and contested finishes. That elite rim deterrence completely overshadowed a streaky perimeter shooting night, driving a massive overall net positive.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +30.7
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +14.5
Raw total +28.0
Avg player in 25.8m -15.4
Impact +12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
16
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.8

Smothering wing defense and exceptional rotational awareness (+9.4 Def) formed the backbone of his highly positive shift. Even though his outside jumper failed to connect, his relentless cutting and transition finishing punished defensive naps.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 49.0%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +39.6
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +9.4
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 25.6m -15.2
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Dru Smith 18.7m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Extreme offensive passivity allowed his defender to roam freely and double-team primary scorers, tanking his overall value. While he navigated screens beautifully on the other end (+7.3 Def), playing 4-on-5 offensively proved too damaging to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.3
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 18.7m -11.0
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Struggled to find any rhythm against physical coverage, leading to forced attempts late in the shot clock. He salvaged some dignity through disciplined closeouts (+5.1 Def), but the offensive disjointedness kept him in the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -26.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.1
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 16.3m -9.7
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Rushed decisions in the paint and clanked perimeter looks derailed his short stint on the floor. A few solid defensive rotations (+3.8 Def) weren't enough to mask the empty offensive possessions he generated.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 12.8m -7.7
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

A fleeting appearance at the end of a quarter offered no time to establish rhythm or impact. He was simply out there to eat the final seconds of the clock.

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 1.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.0m -0.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 38.2m
27
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.7

Relentless perimeter aggression defined this performance, as his high-volume deep shooting warped the opponent's defensive shell. Beyond the scoring surge, he provided excellent weak-side help (+7.3 Def) to solidify a highly positive two-way impact.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 7/15 (46.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Offense +18.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.3
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 38.2m -22.8
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Derik Queen 29.6m
13
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.2

Despite finding better scoring rhythm compared to recent outings, hidden costs like poorly timed turnovers and defensive lapses in transition destroyed his net rating. His solid individual defensive metrics (+4.5) were completely undone by giving the ball away during crucial momentum swings.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.5
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 29.6m -17.6
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Zion Williamson 26.2m
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

Passive offensive stretches severely limited his overall footprint, resulting in a steep drop-off from his usual scoring volume. While his shot selection remained efficient, a lack of defensive resistance (+0.5 Def) and minimal hustle plays allowed opponents to capitalize on his floor time.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -38.1
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 26.2m -15.7
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jeremiah Fears 26.1m
21
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Elite shot selection and perimeter execution generated a massive offensive boost, but he gave nearly all of it back on the other end. Defensive miscommunications and costly live-ball giveaways flattened what should have been a dominant statistical night into a neutral overall impact.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.6%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.7
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 26.1m -15.5
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Karlo Matković 24.3m
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Perimeter shooting struggles cratered his offensive value, as missing all of his attempts from deep killed floor spacing. He salvaged some utility through strong rim protection and defensive rotations (+6.8 Def), but the inability to punish drop coverage kept his overall impact firmly in the red.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.8
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 24.3m -14.4
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Jordan Poole 24.6m
8
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
-8.9

Errant shot selection and forced isolation attempts severely damaged offensive flow, resulting in a highly detrimental floor presence. Even though he showed surprising flashes of effort on loose balls (+4.5 Hustle), his inability to convert at the rim or protect the basketball negated those extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +1.8
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 24.6m -14.7
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
6
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.4

Over-helping on defense and gambles for steals left the backside exposed, contributing to a disastrous overall rating. Combined with a heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers that failed to connect, his usual energetic spark turned into a net negative.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 19.7m -11.8
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Yves Missi 17.1m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Operating perfectly within his role, he anchored the interior with disciplined verticality and timely defensive rotations (+4.7 Def). By avoiding forced shots and focusing on high-percentage finishes around the basket, he maintained a steady, positive influence during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.7
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 17.1m -10.1
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.9

Defensive tenacity and relentless motor completely drove his value in limited action. Generating elite hustle metrics (+5.2) through deflections and contested shots, he proved that low-usage wings can swing momentum without needing offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +5.2
Defense +6.2
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 15.6m -9.2
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Micah Peavy 13.8m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Scrappy perimeter defense and active hands in the passing lanes kept his head above water. However, clunky offensive execution and a few forced mid-range attempts prevented him from making a more significant dent in the game.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 13.8m -8.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

A brief, ineffective cameo was marred by a quick missed jumper that fueled an opponent transition opportunity. He simply did not see enough floor time to establish any defensive rhythm or offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 2.4m -1.4
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Kept the ball moving and stayed attached to his man during a very short rotational stint. His disciplined positioning yielded a slightly positive rating despite logging zero statistical accumulation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 2.4m -1.3
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0