GAME ANALYSIS

GET THIS IN YOUR INBOX

Every breakdown for your team — free, the morning after the game.

Follow your team — free

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Pelle Larsson 35.8m
18
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.2

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
Scoring +14.2
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -7.1
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
+11.3

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
Scoring +12.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +7.6
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
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
+10.0

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
Scoring +7.5
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +15.8
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -7.1
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
-9.3

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
Scoring +1.5
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
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
+9.5

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
Scoring +11.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
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
+15.5

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
Scoring +15.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +10.2
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -4.7
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
-14.6

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
Scoring -1.1
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
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
+5.9

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
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +10.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
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
-1.6

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
Scoring +2.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -2.4
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
-5.4

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
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
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
-6.9

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
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.7

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
Scoring +0.0
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 36.3m
29
pts
11
reb
11
ast
Impact
+17.7

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
Scoring +22.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +6.6
Hustle +3.3
Defense -2.5
Turnovers -4.7
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
+6.6

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
Scoring +8.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.8
Turnovers +0.0
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
-6.6

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
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
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
-9.4

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
Scoring -0.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
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
-14.0

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
Scoring -0.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -3.1
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
+3.4

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
Scoring +6.1
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
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
+19.1

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
Scoring +20.2
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +8.1
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
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
+4.8

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
Scoring +10.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
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
+4.7

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
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +7.6
Defense +5.4
Turnovers -2.4
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
-4.8

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
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
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
-8.3

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
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0