GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 36.4m
21
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

An uncharacteristic barrage of missed three-pointers completely tanked his offensive efficiency and overall net score. While his defensive anchoring remained elite, a stubborn pattern of stepping away from his interior strengths resulted in empty possessions that stalled the offense.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.8%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.4
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 36.4m -20.8
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Pelle Larsson 32.9m
22
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+19.8

Delivered a masterclass in two-way wing play, combining surgical offensive efficiency with suffocating defensive pressure. His ability to seamlessly attack closeouts and generate defensive stops created massive momentum swings that defined the game.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +5.8
Defense +15.3
Raw total +38.6
Avg player in 32.9m -18.8
Impact +19.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 2
S Andrew Wiggins 32.8m
17
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.6

Stout defensive metrics were entirely erased by a high volume of clanked perimeter shots. A pattern of forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock killed offensive momentum and allowed the opposition to get out in transition.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.1%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +10.4
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 32.8m -18.8
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 4
6
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.9

Questionable shot selection and an inability to penetrate the defense resulted in a severely negative impact. A pattern of settling for heavily contested outside looks rather than initiating offensive flow left the team stagnant during his minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +4.5
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 27.1m -15.6
Impact -11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Myron Gardner 22.5m
12
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.0

Dominant work on the offensive glass and hyper-efficient interior finishing fueled a highly productive shift. His ability to secure extra possessions via hustle plays while anchoring the defense completely tilted the frontcourt matchup in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +5.7
Defense +6.5
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 22.5m -12.9
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
20
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.6

A steady diet of effective slashes to the rim was slightly offset by missed interior bunnies that prevented a higher impact score. His defensive versatility and willingness to do the dirty work against bigger matchups kept his overall contribution in the green.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.5
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 32.4m -18.7
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
Dru Smith 19.9m
8
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.5

Smart, low-mistake ball movement and opportunistic scoring drove a surprisingly potent shift. He broke out of a recent slump by taking only high-percentage looks and leveraging solid defensive instincts to spark transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 19.9m -11.5
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Functioned as a black hole on the perimeter, launching a high volume of contested outside shots that failed to connect. This poor shot selection bailed out the defense and dragged down his overall impact despite decent defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 18.0m -10.3
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.4

Offensive rhythm was completely non-existent, as he forced bad shots in traffic and failed to stretch the floor. Even a respectable defensive effort couldn't mask the damage caused by a pattern of inability to generate quality looks or finish at the rim.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense -5.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.7
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 15.0m -8.6
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Barely saw the floor in a brief cameo that lacked any real statistical footprint. Failed to establish a physical presence in the paint during his short stint, resulting in a slightly negative score.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 3.2m -1.8
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Ayo Dosunmu 36.5m
29
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
+10.5

Elite shot selection and blistering perimeter efficiency drove a dominant two-way performance. He consistently broke down the point of attack, generating high-quality looks while maintaining a disruptive defensive presence that suffocated opposing guards all night.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 83.7%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +19.0
Hustle +5.0
Defense +7.4
Raw total +31.4
Avg player in 36.5m -20.9
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Isaac Okoro 34.4m
20
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.9

A highly efficient scoring surge heavily influenced his positive impact, capitalizing on open looks to shoot perfectly from beyond the arc. His robust hustle metrics suggest a high motor that created extra possessions, defining his performance as a relentless two-way effort.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +6.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 34.4m -19.6
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.5

Massive offensive improvement from his recent slump wasn't enough to overcome the negative impact of missed interior attempts. Settling for contested midrange jumpers rather than attacking the rim created a pattern of inefficient usage that kept his net score firmly in the red.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 34.2m -19.5
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Matas Buzelis 33.1m
21
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.3

Despite a solid defensive rating, his overall impact cratered due to inefficient volume shooting and empty offensive possessions. A pattern of forcing contested shots against set defenses dragged down his net score, negating the value of his length on the other end.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.6%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +3.9
Defense +6.4
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 33.1m -19.0
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 8
S Kevin Huerter 21.8m
9
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.1

Spacing issues severely limited his floor-spacing gravity, allowing defenders to clog the paint. A pattern of clanking open perimeter looks resulted in a stagnant half-court attack that defined his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 21.8m -12.4
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Dalen Terry 28.7m
9
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.7

Relentless hustle plays were ultimately undermined by a lack of offensive polish and spacing. His inability to command defensive respect on the perimeter allowed opponents to consistently cheat off him, disrupting the team's half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +6.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 28.7m -16.4
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jevon Carter 20.1m
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

A heavy reliance on the three-point shot yielded mixed results, as missed perimeter looks slightly outweighed his stout point-of-attack defense. His low hustle metrics indicate a lack of loose-ball recoveries needed to push his impact into the green against opposing guards.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +5.4
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 20.1m -11.6
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

Played a strictly low-usage connector role during his brief stint, taking only what the defense gave him. His solid defensive positioning kept him at a neutral net impact, perfectly executing a do-no-harm approach.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 12.0m -7.0
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.3

Maximized limited minutes with decisive perimeter shooting and surprisingly effective defensive rotations. Hitting timely outside shots forced closeouts, which bent the defense and created a disproportionately positive impact for a short shift.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 11.0m -6.3
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.0

Registered a completely neutral shift by staying out of the way offensively and maintaining basic defensive assignments. A lack of rebounding or rim-protection involvement kept his overall influence negligible during his short time on the court.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 8.2m -4.6
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0