GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Andrew Wiggins 34.9m
16
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.8

Relentless energy on the glass and timely weak-side cuts drove a highly effective two-way performance. His elite hustle metrics reflected a constant willingness to do the dirty work, generating crucial second-chance opportunities. Combined with efficient perimeter shot-making, he provided a stabilizing presence on the wing.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +7.2
Defense +3.3
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 34.9m -19.1
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bam Adebayo 33.1m
22
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.8

Stretching the floor with surprising perimeter volume completely distorted the opposing frontcourt defense. While his overall interior efficiency was spotty, his willingness to bomb from deep forced the opposing center out of the paint. This tactical shift, paired with his standard defensive anchoring, resulted in a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 33.1m -18.3
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Norman Powell 31.8m
26
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.2

Downhill aggression and elite finishing at the rim shattered the opponent's defensive shell. He bypassed the three-point line in favor of relentless, high-efficiency drives, constantly putting the defense in rotation. This sheer scoring force drove one of the highest impact scores of the night.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.6%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +23.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 31.8m -17.6
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Tyler Herro 31.0m
22
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.8

Sizzling shot creation and surprisingly disruptive perimeter defense fueled a dominant showing. He consistently punished drop coverage with lethal pull-up jumpers, dictating the pace of the half-court offense. This rare combination of elite scoring efficiency and defensive engagement made him a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.3
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 31.0m -17.1
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Pelle Larsson 29.7m
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.2

An abrupt halt to his recent hot streak severely hampered the second unit's spacing. He repeatedly hesitated on open perimeter looks before forcing contested drives, stalling the offensive flow. This lack of scoring punch turned his minutes into a significant net negative despite decent hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +3.3
Defense +0.5
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 29.7m -16.4
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-4.3

Spectacular offensive efficiency was completely undone by a porous defensive showing. Opposing guards relentlessly targeted his slow lateral movement, blowing past him to collapse the defense and generate open looks. Consequently, his brilliant perimeter shooting was overshadowed by the points he bled on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.9
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 27.4m -15.0
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Firing blanks from the perimeter neutralized his primary value as a floor spacer. Defenders quickly realized he was cold and began aggressively helping off him, which bogged down the team's driving lanes. Without his usual shooting threat, his minutes resulted in a clear negative swing.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.6
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 16.8m -9.3
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.9

A complete inability to find the bottom of the net tanked his overall rating despite a stellar defensive effort. He bricked multiple wide-open spot-up opportunities, allowing the defense to completely ignore him and pack the paint. While his weak-side rim protection was excellent, it wasn't enough to salvage his offensive crater.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 19.3%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -55.4
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense -6.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +5.4
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 15.2m -8.3
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Dru Smith 11.5m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

Offensive invisibility severely handicapped the lineup during his rotation minutes. Though he fought hard over screens and provided solid point-of-attack defense, his complete lack of scoring gravity stalled multiple possessions. The resulting offensive stagnation directly caused his negative impact score.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -39.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.5
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 11.5m -6.4
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Elite rim deterrence salvaged a stint defined by poor offensive execution. Even as he struggled to finish around the basket, his sheer length completely altered the opponent's shot profile in the paint. This defensive intimidation ensured he remained a net positive during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -42.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.3
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 8.8m -5.0
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 36.1m
8
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.5

A disastrous shooting performance completely negated an otherwise spectacular defensive showing. While his point-of-attack pressure yielded elite defensive metrics, clanking wide-open perimeter looks crippled the offensive flow. The stark contrast between his defensive tenacity and offensive struggles defined his negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +3.7
Defense +6.0
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 36.1m -19.9
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Jaylen Brown 30.2m
27
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.8

Heavy isolation volume resulted in a severely inefficient shooting night that dragged down his overall rating. His inability to find a rhythm from the perimeter forced him into contested midrange looks, neutralizing his scoring gravity. Despite decent hustle metrics, the wasted offensive possessions created a net negative performance.

Shooting
FG 9/24 (37.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.9%
USG% 40.5%
Net Rtg -13.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.2
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 30.2m -16.6
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Sam Hauser 29.2m
17
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.7

Elite floor spacing and surprisingly stout perimeter defense drove a highly positive overall rating. He capitalized on defensive rotations by burying catch-and-shoot opportunities, punishing the opponent for helping off him. This two-way reliability made him one of the most impactful players on the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 29.2m -16.1
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
-6.5

A massive drop-off in scoring aggression left a noticeable void in the second-unit offense. Although he provided steady on-ball defense, his reluctance to hunt his own shot allowed defenders to sag off and clog passing lanes. Failing to replicate his recent scoring surge ultimately resulted in a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg -42.6
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 24.0m -13.1
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 19.8m
9
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.5

Dominant rim protection and highly efficient interior finishing fueled a strong positive rating in limited minutes. He consistently walled off the paint while converting almost every lob or dump-off pass he received. Continuing a trend of hyper-efficient outings, his vertical spacing completely altered the opposing defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.2
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 19.8m -10.8
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
39
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.3

Unrelenting perimeter shot-making broke the opposing defensive shell and drove a massive positive rating. He weaponized high pick-and-rolls to generate a barrage of deep pull-up jumpers, forcing constant double-teams. This scoring gravity not only inflated his box metrics but also opened up the floor for the entire offense.

Shooting
FG 13/28 (46.4%)
3PT 7/16 (43.8%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 37.9%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +24.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.8
Raw total +31.2
Avg player in 34.3m -18.9
Impact +12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Luka Garza 28.0m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Strong offensive rebounding and interior scoring were slightly outweighed by defensive vulnerabilities in space. Opposing guards repeatedly targeted his drop coverage in pick-and-roll situations, neutralizing his efficient post touches. Consequently, his impressive box metrics masked a nearly neutral overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.6
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 28.0m -15.5
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jordan Walsh 19.8m
4
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Opportunistic cutting and perfect shot selection maximized his value during a brief rotation stint. He stayed strictly within his role, avoiding forced actions while crashing the glass effectively to generate extra possessions. This disciplined approach yielded a modest but clear positive impact on the game.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.7
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 19.8m -10.9
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

A lack of physical engagement and minimal defensive presence led to a noticeably negative stint. He struggled to navigate screens off the ball, allowing easy backdoor cuts that compromised the defensive shell. Without enough offensive volume to compensate, his passive play dragged down the lineup.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg +65.7
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 13.5m -7.5
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Kept the ball moving and executed defensive rotations flawlessly during a brief garbage-time cameo. His commitment to staying in front of his man generated a slight positive defensive rating without needing to force any offensive action. It was a textbook example of eating minutes without making mistakes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 5.0m -2.7
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0