GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 38.7m
21
pts
12
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.1

Completely warped the opposing defense by stepping out and confidently hitting from beyond the arc. His elite switchability on the perimeter stifled pick-and-roll actions, though a few miscommunications in transition kept his net impact from soaring higher.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +9.8
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 38.7m -24.2
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Andrew Wiggins 31.6m
16
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.1

Settled for contested mid-range jumpers early in the shot clock, which disrupted the overall offensive flow. He locked in defensively on the perimeter, but poor offensive decision-making ultimately washed out his two-way contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.9%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.4
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 31.6m -19.8
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Norman Powell 28.2m
22
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.1

Tunnel vision on drives resulted in forced attempts at the rim and killed ball movement. His inability to stay attached to shooters off the ball allowed opponents to capitalize on open corner threes, severely punishing his minutes.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense -2.2
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 28.2m -17.7
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Pelle Larsson 27.8m
8
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.9

Clogged the offensive spacing by refusing to take open perimeter looks, allowing the defense to pack the paint. While his rebounding intensity was commendable, his offensive hesitance stalled out multiple halfcourt sets.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.7
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 27.8m -17.4
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.2

Proved to be an absolute zero on the offensive end, allowing his defender to freely roam and double-team others. Despite showing active hands in passing lanes, his inability to generate any scoring gravity tanked the lineup's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 19.9m -12.4
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.1

Consistently lost his man on backdoor cuts, bleeding easy points at the rim. His efficient scoring in the post was completely overshadowed by defensive lapses and poorly timed fouls that put the opponent in the bonus early.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.6
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 27.6m -17.3
Impact -12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Dru Smith 21.5m
13
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.2

Injected sudden life into the offense by decisively penetrating the paint and kicking out to open shooters. His unexpected scoring punch forced the defense to adjust its coverages, creating a ripple effect of high-quality looks for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.1%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 21.5m -13.5
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
23
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.9

Caught fire from the perimeter, acting as the ultimate zone-buster with his lightning-quick release. His gravity as a floor spacer opened up massive driving lanes for teammates, completely tilting the math in his team's favor during a crucial stretch.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg +20.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 19.5m -12.2
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.3

Failed to punish closeouts and bricked key momentum-swinging perimeter looks. While he offered some secondary rim protection, his lack of offensive assertiveness allowed the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.7
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 18.5m -11.5
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.4

Provided a quick spark of interior physicality by battling for deep post position. Altered a couple of shots around the rim during his brief stint to help maintain the defensive standard.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 6.7m -4.2
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 38.5m
31
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.0

Overpowered his primary matchups in the halfcourt to generate high-value looks at the rim and collapse the defense. His physical interior presence neutralized second-chance opportunities, driving a massive positive swing whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 11/23 (47.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.6%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +26.0
Hustle +2.7
Defense +7.4
Raw total +36.1
Avg player in 38.5m -24.1
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Anthony Black 37.4m
26
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+17.0

Relentless point-of-attack pressure disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm all night. Paired with decisive, downhill drives and excellent shot selection from the perimeter, his two-way energy dictated the tempo of the entire game.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.9%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +23.8
Hustle +4.7
Defense +11.9
Raw total +40.4
Avg player in 37.4m -23.4
Impact +17.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 0
S Desmond Bane 36.6m
23
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.5

Efficient perimeter scoring kept the offense humming, but his overall impact was dragged down by likely live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent transition runs. His point-of-attack defense was solid, yet off-ball lapses prevented a dominant net rating.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.9%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.7
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 36.6m -22.9
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Suggs 29.2m
16
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.7

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc stalled out several offensive possessions and allowed the defense to set up in transition. Despite his usual defensive intensity, forcing contested jumpers ultimately bled crucial value on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.2
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 29.2m -18.3
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.1

Struggled to anchor the paint as opponents consistently exploited his drop coverage in pick-and-roll situations. A lack of secondary rim protection and low hustle metrics allowed the opposition to generate easy looks, severely tanking his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.0
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 27.0m -16.9
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.5

Provided crucial connective tissue for the second unit through timely baseline cuts and smart defensive rotations. His ability to stay in front of quicker wings without fouling kept the defensive shell intact during transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +7.1
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 20.9m -13.1
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyus Jones 19.4m
5
pts
1
reb
9
ast
Impact
-4.3

Orchestrated the second unit beautifully with precise hit-ahead passes, but his lack of size made him a constant target in isolation. Opponents hunting him on switches completely negated the offensive rhythm he generated.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 19.4m -12.1
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.2

Completely erased the paint during his stints by acting as a terrifying weak-side rim protector. His elite rotational timing and deflections blew up multiple offensive sets, proving you do not need offensive volume to dominate a game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +3.6
Defense +9.2
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 16.8m -10.5
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
Noah Penda 7.9m
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Rushed his attempts around the basket, leading to empty possessions that stunted the team's momentum. A lack of defensive awareness on closeouts further compounded his struggles during a brief, ineffective stint.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -98.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 7.9m -4.9
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Brought immediate spacing as a trail big during his quick rotation on the floor. Kept his feet moving on defensive switches just enough to survive without giving up easy driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 4.4m -2.8
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Barely saw the floor in a fleeting rotational appearance at the end of a quarter. Failed to make any measurable impact on either end of the court before being subbed back out.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +46.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.9m -1.2
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0