GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 37.2m
23
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.3

Forcing the issue in crowded paint areas led to empty trips and likely transition opportunities for the opponent. While he anchored the defense admirably, his struggles to convert through contact dragged down the overall offensive efficiency. The sheer volume of clanked interior looks ultimately outweighed his rim protection.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.3%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 37.2m -19.4
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Andrew Wiggins 35.9m
26
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Aggressive downhill drives and confident perimeter volume completely revitalized his offensive profile. He consistently punished closeouts, forcing the defense into frantic rotations that opened up the floor. That sudden burst of scoring gravity provided a crucial stabilizing element for the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 35.9m -18.7
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 52.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Davion Mitchell 30.9m
12
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.0

Getting relentlessly hunted on switches neutralized his flawless shooting efficiency. Opposing wings easily shot over his contests, turning him into a persistent liability on the perimeter. The defensive bleeding was so severe that it completely erased the value of his perfect offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.2
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 30.9m -16.2
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

An absolutely glacial shooting night sabotaged what was otherwise a fundamentally sound defensive performance. Clanking wide-open spot-up looks allowed the defense to aggressively pack the paint against his teammates. Drawing fouls salvaged his scoring slightly, but the sheer volume of bricks stalled the offense.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.4
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 18.6m -9.7
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kel'el Ware 14.2m
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Occasional flashes of hustle couldn't mask a disjointed stint where he struggled to process defensive rotations. Being a step slow on pick-and-roll coverage compromised the backline, bleeding points at the rim. Those structural breakdowns kept his impact firmly in the negative despite decent shooting efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +34.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 14.2m -7.5
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
20
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Catching fire from beyond the arc completely warped the opponent's defensive geometry. His sudden emergence as a lethal floor-spacer punished drop coverages and created massive driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. That unexpected perimeter explosion was the defining catalyst for his positive rating.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.3
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 32.2m -16.8
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.8

Elite defensive instincts and exceptional gap-filling saved him from a disastrous shooting performance. By constantly jumping passing lanes and disrupting the opponent's offensive rhythm, he manufactured value without needing the ball to go through the hoop. His relentless motor ensured he remained a net positive despite the offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.8%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.3
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 30.5m -15.9
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
Dru Smith 17.1m
4
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.4

Tenacious point-of-attack defense completely derailed the opponent's initiation sequences. He generated massive value through sheer disruption, diving for loose balls and blowing up dribble hand-offs before they could materialize. This chaotic energy shifted the game's tempo entirely in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense +6.5
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 17.1m -8.9
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.4

Total inability to connect from deep turned him into an offensive black hole during his stint. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, which suffocated the team's spacing and bogged down half-court sets. This offensive ineptitude resulted in a catastrophic drop in lineup efficiency.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 17.0m -8.9
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.8

A brief, highly ineffective cameo was marred by missed assignments and a lack of offensive assertiveness. Failing to execute basic rotations allowed the opponent to spark a quick run during his limited minutes. The coaching staff quickly pulled the plug after his presence actively harmed the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -58.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total -2.5
Avg player in 6.3m -3.3
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
UTA Utah Jazz
S Ace Bailey 36.5m
16
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.8

Relentless energy plays and loose-ball recoveries drove a massive hustle rating. He maintained constant pressure on both ends of the floor, turning broken plays into transition opportunities. That high-motor persistence easily offset a few empty trips from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +6.8
Defense +3.6
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 36.5m -19.1
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Isaiah Collier 34.5m
13
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
-2.5

Playmaking vision was completely undermined by sloppy ball security and live-ball turnovers. Giving away possessions in the open floor neutralized the value he generated as a primary facilitator. Opponents capitalized on those careless reads, dragging his overall impact firmly into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.1
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 34.5m -18.0
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
22
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.9

Defensive intimidation completely anchored his high net rating. Even though poor shot selection led to a barrage of missed field goals, his rim protection and high-motor closeouts erased opponent possessions. His ability to blow up pick-and-rolls single-handedly tilted the math in Utah's favor.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg +31.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.3
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 24.9m -13.1
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Lauri Markkanen 24.6m
17
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Heavy perimeter variance limited his overall effectiveness despite solid defensive positioning. Settling for contested jumpers dragged down his efficiency, keeping his net impact surprisingly modest. He managed to stay in the green by contesting effectively on the glass and avoiding costly defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 24.6m -13.0
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jusuf Nurkić 24.6m
10
pts
16
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.5

Dominating the interior real estate masked a relatively low-usage offensive night. He consistently walled off the paint and generated crucial extra possessions through sheer physical positioning. That relentless presence on the interior established a baseline of positive impact that the opponent couldn't crack.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.1
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 24.6m -12.9
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
16
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.9

Exceptional positional awareness on defense completely disrupted the opponent's interior rhythm. He leveraged his size perfectly to alter shots without fouling, while simultaneously serving as a highly efficient hub on the other end. Continuing his recent trend of smart shot selection maximized every minute he spent on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.9%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.9
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 23.4m -12.1
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock severely damaged the team's offensive flow. A sharp drop from his usual scoring efficiency highlighted a night defined by poor decision-making and stagnant off-ball movement. Those empty possessions handed momentum right back to the opposition.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 22.2m -11.6
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Complete offensive passivity rendered him nearly invisible during his stint on the floor. Failing to aggressively hunt his usual looks allowed the defense to sag off and clog the driving lanes for teammates. This lack of gravity stalled the offense and resulted in a stark negative rating.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 2.4%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.0
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 18.5m -9.8
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
John Konchar 15.6m
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.4

Getting repeatedly targeted on the perimeter caused his defensive metrics to plummet. His total reluctance to engage offensively compounded the issue, essentially forcing his team to play four-on-five. That combined lack of resistance and spacing created a massive crater in the lineup's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.9
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 15.6m -8.2
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.0

A failure to string together consecutive stops or meaningful offensive sequences kept him hovering below replacement level. While he flashed occasional playmaking, defensive miscommunications and late rotations surrendered easy angles. The resulting structural breakdowns outweighed his scattered positive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +21.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 15.1m -7.9
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2