Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIA lead NOP lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
NOP 2P — 3P —
MIA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 192 attempts

NOP NOP Shot-making Δ

Murphy III Hard 10/19 +7.5
Fears 8/13 +5.9
Queen Open 5/11 -3.1
Poole 3/11 -3.8
Williamson Open 6/10 -0.4
Alvarado Hard 2/7 -1.1
Missi Open 3/5 -0.8
Peavy 2/5 -1.3
Matković 2/5 -1.9
McGowens Hard 1/3 -0.1

MIA MIA Shot-making Δ

Jović 7/16 -2.7
Powell Hard 11/15 +14.9
Larsson Open 7/15 -3.9
Adebayo 5/14 -3.1
Ware Open 7/13 -1.2
Mitchell 3/10 -2.0
Wiggins 4/9 -1.0
Gardner 1/5 -3.9
Jakučionis Hard 1/4 -1.3
Smith Open 1/1 +0.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
NOP
MIA
42/90 Field Goals 47/102
46.7% Field Goal % 46.1%
16/40 3-Pointers 18/44
40.0% 3-Point % 40.9%
6/8 Free Throws 13/18
75.0% Free Throw % 72.2%
56.7% True Shooting % 56.9%
58 Total Rebounds 52
6 Offensive 12
37 Defensive 31
28 Assists 30
1.08 Assist/TO Ratio 2.00
24 Turnovers 14
8 Steals 19
8 Blocks 7
14 Fouls 14
46 Points in Paint 54
11 Fast Break Pts 31
14 Points off TOs 31
11 Second Chance Pts 18
29 Bench Points 44
3 Largest Lead 21
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Norman Powell
34 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 28.8 MIN
+34.34
2
Trey Murphy III
27 PTS · 8 REB · 5 AST · 38.2 MIN
+22.67
3
Nikola Jović
19 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 25.8 MIN
+20.43
4
Kel'el Ware
16 PTS · 12 REB · 1 AST · 24.6 MIN
+17.36
5
Pelle Larsson
16 PTS · 3 REB · 6 AST · 25.6 MIN
+15.23
6
Jeremiah Fears
21 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 26.1 MIN
+11.7
7
Bam Adebayo
12 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 28.8 MIN
+11.03
8
Andrew Wiggins
10 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 28.4 MIN
+8.35
9
Zion Williamson
12 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 26.2 MIN
+7.89
10
Bryce McGowens
5 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 15.6 MIN
+5.61
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:21 D. Queen REBOUND (Off:0 Def:6) 106–125
Q4 0:24 MISS K. Jakučionis 10' driving floating Shot 106–125
Q4 0:41 M. Peavy driving Layup (4 PTS) (T. Alexander 1 AST) 106–125
Q4 1:01 N. Powell take personal FOUL (3 PF) 104–125
Q4 1:03 K. Ware 10' turnaround Hook (16 PTS) 104–125
Q4 1:03 K. Ware REBOUND (Off:6 Def:6) 104–123
Q4 1:07 MISS B. Adebayo 26' running pullup 3PT 104–123
Q4 1:11 B. Adebayo REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 104–123
Q4 1:15 MISS J. Hawkins 25' step back 3PT 104–123
Q4 1:24 N. Powell 25' 3PT (34 PTS) (B. Adebayo 6 AST) 104–123
Q4 1:49 J. Fears 16' fadeaway Jump Shot (21 PTS) 104–120
Q4 2:09 N. Powell driving finger roll Layup (31 PTS) 102–120
Q4 2:24 D. Queen Free Throw 2 of 2 (13 PTS) 102–118
Q4 2:24 D. Queen Free Throw 1 of 2 (12 PTS) 101–118
Q4 2:24 K. Ware shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Queen 2 FT) 100–118

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

MIA Miami Heat
S Davion Mitchell 29.3m
9
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.9

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
Scoring +4.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +3.8
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Norman Powell 28.8m
34
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+33.3

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
Scoring +30.8
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +9.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Bam Adebayo 28.8m
12
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.2

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
Scoring +5.3
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +7.6
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Andrew Wiggins 28.4m
10
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.0

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
Scoring +6.6
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.5
Turnovers -4.7
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
+14.8

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
Scoring +10.5
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +15.2
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -2.4
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
+15.8

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
Scoring +11.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +6.7
Defense +8.1
Turnovers -4.7
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
+9.9

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
Scoring +8.6
Creation +3.4
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.1
Turnovers -4.7
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
-7.5

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
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +7.1
Turnovers -7.8
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
-3.7

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
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.4
Turnovers +0.0
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
-2.6

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
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -2.4
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
-2.3

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
Scoring +5.1
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.5
Turnovers -1.6
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 38.2m
27
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+18.2

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
Scoring +19.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +8.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -4.7
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
-10.2

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
Scoring +7.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -11.8
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
+2.7

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
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +6.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -3.5
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
+3.9

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
Scoring +16.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -8.2
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
-7.8

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
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -4.7
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
-9.5

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
Scoring +2.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -7.1
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
-9.6

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
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -7.1
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
-3.2

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
Scoring +3.9
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +5.4
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
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
-3.8

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
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -4.7
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
-6.5

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
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.2

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
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.0

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
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0