GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Pelle Larsson 35.8m
18
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.3

Despite solid finishing inside the arc, a complete failure to stretch the floor from deep allowed defenders to pack the paint, dragging down his overall impact (-4.3). His offensive rhythm was disrupted by poor spacing, leading to stalled half-court sets that outweighed his decent hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 16.8%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 35.8m -21.6
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
18
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.1

A heavy diet of forced, contested three-pointers neutralized his scoring surge, leaving him with a flat net impact (-0.1). While he showed much-needed aggression compared to recent outings, the wasted possessions from deep gave the opposition too many transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.8
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 33.6m -20.2
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Bam Adebayo 30.2m
16
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.1

Brutal inefficiency around the basket and clanked jumpers completely torpedoed his overall score (-6.1). Even though he anchored the paint defensively (+6.3), his inability to convert high-leverage paint touches essentially handed empty possessions back to the opponent.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.3
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 30.2m -18.0
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Davion Mitchell 28.1m
4
pts
1
reb
10
ast
Impact
-10.3

Severe defensive lapses at the point of attack and a total lack of scoring gravity resulted in a disastrous net rating (-10.3). Opponents routinely exploited his matchups on the perimeter, completely negating the value of his high-volume playmaking.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.2
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 28.1m -16.9
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Myron Gardner 22.0m
14
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.2

Relentless energy on 50/50 balls and suffocating perimeter defense (+7.3) drove a spectacular overall impact (+10.2). He capitalized on broken plays and transition opportunities, converting high-value looks without demanding half-court touches.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.3
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 22.0m -13.2
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
21
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.0

Methodical footwork in the post and relentless offensive rebounding fueled a highly productive shift (+5.0). He consistently punished mismatches in the mid-range while providing excellent weak-side defensive help to stifle opponent drives.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -38.1
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.6
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 27.5m -16.5
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 60.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Dru Smith 18.6m
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.4

Tremendous effort on loose balls (+6.0 Hustle) was entirely undone by glaring offensive limitations (-5.4 Total). Defenses completely ignored him on the perimeter, resulting in bogged-down spacing and wasted possessions whenever he touched the ball.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -39.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +6.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 18.6m -11.1
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Kel'el Ware 17.8m
9
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Rushed attempts around the rim limited his offensive value, keeping his overall impact barely positive (+0.5). However, his length altered several shots in the paint, providing just enough defensive stability to offset his inefficient finishing.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.4%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.9
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 17.8m -10.7
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.3

High-IQ defensive rotations and disruptive activity in the passing lanes drove a solid positive impact (+3.3). He recognized his shot wasn't falling and wisely pivoted to playing a gritty, connector role that kept the team's defensive shell intact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -44.4
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.3
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 16.1m -9.7
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

A quick burst of floor-spacing and attentive weak-side defense yielded a modest positive return (+1.6). He didn't force the issue during his brief stint, executing his assignments cleanly without giving up easy transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 7.6m -4.6
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.4

Capitalized immediately on a fleeting end-of-game appearance to register a quick positive mark (+2.4). Attacking the basket decisively on his only touch ensured his brief minutes were highly efficient.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg +200.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense +3.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 1.4m -0.8
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Logged empty minutes at the end of the rotation, resulting in a slightly negative score (-0.8). A lack of touches and a quick defensive breakdown during his shift prevented him from establishing any rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +200.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.4m -0.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 36.3m
29
pts
11
reb
11
ast
Impact
+8.3

Elite shot creation and high-value finishing around the rim fueled a massive positive impact (+8.3). He consistently broke down the primary point of attack, generating high-quality looks for himself and teammates while maintaining strong defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +22.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.7
Raw total +30.0
Avg player in 36.3m -21.7
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
19
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.4

Heavy shot volume masked severe inefficiency, keeping his net impact barely above water (+0.4). Clanking numerous contested perimeter jumpers essentially functioned as live-ball turnovers, though his active hands in passing lanes prevented a negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 8/21 (38.1%)
3PT 3/12 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.2%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +3.9
Defense +2.4
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 31.4m -19.0
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Despite generating excellent defensive pressure and loose-ball recoveries (+5.8 Hustle), his overall impact dipped into the red (-1.8). A lack of perimeter rhythm stalled offensive momentum, as he settled for contested looks from deep rather than attacking the paint.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +5.8
Defense +5.6
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 22.9m -13.8
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dyson Daniels 21.6m
2
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.0

A stark departure from his recent aggressive slashing resulted in a severely depressed overall impact (-8.0). Passive shot selection and an inability to pressure the rim allowed the defense to sag off, stalling the half-court offense despite decent perimeter defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 21.6m -12.9
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

Impact cratered (-6.7) due to empty offensive possessions and poor positioning on the defensive interior. Failing to convert on any field goal attempts completely negated the marginal value he provided through screen-setting and hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 11.1m -6.7
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.4

Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock dragged his overall impact into the negative (-2.4). While he found more scoring opportunities than usual, the sheer number of wasted possessions from deep outweighed his respectable off-ball movement.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.4%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +26.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 27.6m -16.5
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CJ McCollum 26.4m
26
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.3

Blistering perimeter efficiency and pristine shot selection drove a highly positive net rating (+6.3). He consistently punished drop coverage by stepping into rhythm jumpers, maximizing the value of every offensive touch without turning the ball over.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +19.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.1
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 26.4m -15.9
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Luke Kennard 23.1m
12
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Elite spacing and punishing spot-up execution kept his offensive value high, though his overall impact remained modest (+0.5). A lack of resistance at the point of attack on defense allowed opponents to easily bypass him, offsetting his perimeter marksmanship.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +42.3
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.5
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 23.1m -13.9
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.6

Exceptional rim deterrence and disciplined closeouts generated a massive defensive boost (+6.8) to anchor his positive impact. He stayed strictly within his role offensively, taking only high-percentage looks to ensure he never hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.8
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 21.6m -13.0
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
Asa Newell 16.6m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

Timely cuts to the basket and opportunistic finishing allowed him to maximize a low-usage role (+1.2). His solid rotational awareness on the defensive end prevented easy interior looks, keeping his minutes firmly in the black.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.9
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 16.6m -10.1
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

A brief but flawless offensive cameo provided a quick positive jolt (+1.4) in limited action. Nailing his lone perimeter attempt maximized his short stint, even if he lacked the floor time to establish a defensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 1.4m -0.8
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0