GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Norman Powell 35.4m
19
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.9

Settling for contested perimeter looks while failing to finish inside doomed his overall efficiency. Even with strong defensive metrics, a pattern of live-ball turnovers bled away his scoring impact. The volume simply couldn't justify the number of wasted possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +3.2
Defense +8.0
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 35.4m -21.2
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Andrew Wiggins 32.2m
15
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.7

Chucking up heavily contested mid-range jumpers stalled the offensive flow and tanked his efficiency. Despite solid playmaking, a brutal string of turnovers or foul costs dragged his overall impact below zero. He absorbed too many possessions without generating high-quality outcomes.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 32.2m -19.3
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Bam Adebayo 32.0m
30
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+16.5

A shocking barrage from beyond the arc completely broke the opposing defensive scheme, masking a likely string of turnovers. He paired this unprecedented floor-spacing with his usual elite rebounding and switchable defense to dominate his frontcourt matchup. By drawing opposing bigs out to the perimeter, he single-handedly dictated the terms of engagement.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.9%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +27.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.8
Raw total +35.6
Avg player in 32.0m -19.1
Impact +16.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Pelle Larsson 29.5m
16
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

Relentless energy and loose-ball recoveries were completely undone by poor perimeter execution. A pattern of missing wide-open attempts from deep allowed the defense to pack the paint, while a massive hidden penalty from turnovers erased his scoring contributions. The high motor couldn't mask the lack of offensive polish.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +7.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 29.5m -17.7
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-13.4

Bricking nearly every shot he took allowed defenders to completely ignore him and blow up passing lanes. The playmaking vision was there, but it was overshadowed by a disastrous stretch of missed shots and defensive liabilities. He actively hurt the team's spacing and momentum during his time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.4
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 26.7m -16.0
Impact -13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Dru Smith 20.9m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.9

Horrific finishing around the basket resulted in a string of empty possessions that killed offensive momentum. While he tried to compensate with active hustle, a severe penalty from turnovers and missed shots was too much to overcome. He essentially acted as a possession-ender every time he challenged the rim.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.6%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 20.9m -12.5
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.7

A massive scoring surge off the bench provided a crucial offensive lifeline, even if careless turnovers capped his overall ceiling. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications to find open pockets, converting highly efficient looks from all three levels. This offensive explosion easily covered for his slight defensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.3
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 17.6m -10.4
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kel'el Ware 16.0m
7
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

Dominant work on the glass and stout interior defense bailed out a dreadful shooting performance. He struggled mightily to finish through contact, but a pattern of securing extra possessions kept his overall impact in the green. The raw rim protection proved more valuable than his offensive struggles were detrimental.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -28.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.3
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 16.0m -9.6
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.9

Empty trips defined his stint, as he failed to connect on a single shot from beyond the arc. This lack of gravity clogged the driving lanes for his teammates, while a pattern of hidden mistakes compounded his negative offensive rating. Even solid defensive positioning couldn't salvage his disastrous shooting night.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 19.0%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 15.1m -9.0
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.1

Absolute perfection from the field delivered a flawless offensive spark in limited minutes. He never forced a bad look, taking exactly what the defense gave him to maximize his box score impact. This hyper-efficient scoring burst completely changed the complexion of the game during his shift.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 137.5%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 14.6m -8.7
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
39
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+19.9

An absolute masterclass in offensive efficiency drove a sky-high net impact, even with a hefty penalty from likely turnovers. He systematically dismantled his primary matchups in isolation, generating high-quality looks at will while maintaining stellar shooting splits. Active hands and secondary rim deterrence ensured he was a massive net positive on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 13/13 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.9%
USG% 32.5%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +33.5
Hustle +5.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +41.5
Avg player in 36.3m -21.6
Impact +19.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Chet Holmgren 30.2m
14
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.1

Elite rim protection anchored his massive defensive rating, fundamentally altering the geometry of the opponent's shot profile. He paired this defensive dominance with relentless hustle to control the paint, though a slew of hidden turnovers kept his overall impact from reaching astronomical heights. This two-way interior presence still more than made up for a quiet night from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.6%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +6.3
Defense +12.5
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 30.2m -18.0
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 29
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 44.8%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 2
S Cason Wallace 22.1m
9
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.3

Disruptive point-of-attack defense set the tone for his highly efficient two-way performance. He picked his spots perfectly on offense, punishing defensive rotations without forcing bad looks. The combination of high-level defensive pressure and mistake-free execution kept the team in constant control during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.8
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 22.1m -13.3
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 26.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luguentz Dort 21.9m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.1

Impact cratered by a massive hidden penalty—likely a barrage of live-ball turnovers—that completely erased his positive defensive metrics. A pattern of forced, clunky perimeter shots compounded the bleeding during his shifts. The point-of-attack pressure simply couldn't offset the empty possessions he created.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 21.9m -13.1
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jalen Williams 13.6m
8
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.5

Foul trouble or sloppy ball security clearly shortened his night, as evidenced by the steep drop-off between his raw production and overall impact. When he actually got shots up, his pristine shot selection yielded perfect marks from deep. Unfortunately, his inability to stay on the floor prevented him from establishing any real offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.6
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 13.6m -8.2
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.3

Forcing low-percentage looks from the perimeter severely damaged his offensive value. The scoring volume was entirely negated by a pattern of costly turnovers and defensive breakdowns, plunging his total impact into the negatives. He essentially gave back every point he generated by squandering subsequent possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 27.7m -16.5
Impact -12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
18
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.3

Scorching offensive efficiency drove a massive box score impact, continuing a red-hot stretch of shooting. He punished closeouts relentlessly to stretch the defense, though sloppy ball security or foul costs prevented his total rating from matching his raw production. Solid weak-side defensive rotations perfectly complemented this scoring outburst.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +5.3
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 27.6m -16.5
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Alex Caruso 21.0m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.0

Despite bringing his trademark defensive intensity and loose-ball hustle, hidden mistakes completely tanked his overall rating. A severe lack of offensive aggression allowed defenders to sag off, while a stretch of costly fouls or turnovers bled away any value he created on the margins. The perimeter disruption just wasn't enough to cover for the empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 21.0m -12.6
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Isaiah Joe 19.2m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.6

Lethal perimeter shooting normally drives his value, but a slew of hidden mistakes—likely bad fouls or careless turnovers—plunged his net impact into the negatives. He knocked down his open looks efficiently, yet gave the points right back through a pattern of defensive breakdowns. The sharpshooting was effectively neutralized by poor execution between the margins.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.7
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 19.2m -11.4
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.7

Passive offensive play and defensive lapses made him a liability during his rotation. While he kept the ball moving well, a pattern of refusing to challenge the defense as a scoring threat bogged down the half-court spacing. Hidden penalties, likely from moving screens or careless passes, further dragged his impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.6
Defense -0.2
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 17.8m -10.6
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

A brief, uneventful stint yielded almost zero statistical footprint. He simply filled space on the floor without altering the momentum in either direction.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 2.7m -1.6
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0