Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ATL lead MIA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MIA 2P — 3P —
ATL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 195 attempts

MIA MIA Shot-making Δ

Ware 6/15 -3.2
Herro 9/14 +4.6
Adebayo 8/14 +0.7
Powell 5/13 -2.7
Wiggins Hard 5/12 +0.5
Larsson Open 6/9 +1.0
Jaquez Jr. Open 5/9 -0.3
Mitchell 3/5 +1.1
Johnson Hard 2/3 +2.2
Jakučionis 1/3 -1.3

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Johnson 6/22 -10.0
Alexander-Walker Hard 8/17 +2.2
McCollum 8/16 +1.9
Okongwu 8/12 +6.5
Risacher 1/8 -5.4
Daniels Open 2/7 -4.2
Landale Hard 1/7 -5.4
Kispert 2/5 -0.6
Wallace Hard 0/1 -0.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MIA
ATL
52/100 Field Goals 36/95
52.0% Field Goal % 37.9%
13/35 3-Pointers 16/38
37.1% 3-Point % 42.1%
11/14 Free Throws 9/15
78.6% Free Throw % 60.0%
60.3% True Shooting % 47.7%
63 Total Rebounds 54
11 Offensive 12
47 Defensive 34
31 Assists 26
3.44 Assist/TO Ratio 2.00
8 Turnovers 13
8 Steals 4
4 Blocks 3
21 Fouls 16
72 Points in Paint 38
15 Fast Break Pts 11
20 Points off TOs 9
17 Second Chance Pts 10
64 Bench Points 31
34 Largest Lead 0
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Tyler Herro
24 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 23.3 MIN
+22.65
2
Onyeka Okongwu
22 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 29.4 MIN
+21.02
3
Bam Adebayo
17 PTS · 8 REB · 5 AST · 27.2 MIN
+17.23
4
Kel'el Ware
14 PTS · 12 REB · 1 AST · 18.1 MIN
+15.59
5
Pelle Larsson
12 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 31.9 MIN
+15.03
6
Davion Mitchell
7 PTS · 5 REB · 7 AST · 26.5 MIN
+10.07
7
Kasparas Jakučionis
4 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 16.6 MIN
+9.41
8
Jalen Johnson
16 PTS · 16 REB · 11 AST · 35.4 MIN
+9.03
9
CJ McCollum
20 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 27.4 MIN
+8.08
10
Jaime Jaquez Jr.
10 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 26.6 MIN
+7.34
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:17 K. Wallace Free Throw 2 of 2 (2 PTS) 128–97
Q4 0:17 K. Wallace Free Throw 1 of 2 (1 PTS) 128–96
Q4 0:17 M. Gardner personal FOUL (4 PF) (Wallace 2 FT) 128–95
Q4 0:17 K. Wallace REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 128–95
Q4 0:18 MISS K. Johnson 6' driving Layup 128–95
Q4 0:28 J. Landale Free Throw 2 of 2 (3 PTS) 128–95
Q4 0:28 TEAM offensive REBOUND 128–94
Q4 0:28 MISS J. Landale Free Throw 1 of 2 128–94
Q4 0:28 M. Gardner personal FOUL (3 PF) (Landale 2 FT) 128–94
Q4 0:33 M. Gardner Free Throw 1 of 1 (3 PTS) 128–94
Q4 0:33 K. Wallace shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Gardner 1 FT) 127–94
Q4 0:33 M. Gardner 6' driving floating bank Jump Shot (2 PTS) 127–94
Q4 0:37 M. Gardner REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 125–94
Q4 0:39 MISS D. Smith 25' running pullup 3PT 125–94
Q4 0:45 M. Gardner REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 125–94

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
20
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.3

Despite impressive hustle metrics and strong perimeter shooting, his overall impact was dragged into the red by forced offensive possessions that stalled the half-court flow. He hunted his own shot aggressively, but the heavy isolation diet disrupted the team's rhythm and allowed the defense to set. The scoring volume was ultimately a mirage that masked his negative effect on the unit's offensive synergy.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -30.4
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Scoring +13.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jalen Johnson 35.4m
16
pts
16
reb
11
ast
Impact
+11.0

Brutal inefficiency defined this outing, as he forced contested looks through heavy traffic and couldn't buy a bucket near the rim. While his elite playmaking vision salvaged some offensive utility, the sheer volume of empty shooting trips handed the opponent constant transition opportunities. The defensive metrics were solid, but the offensive cratering was catastrophic to the team's net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/22 (27.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Scoring +3.9
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +16.4
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Dyson Daniels 29.5m
4
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.9

Offensive hesitancy and poor finishing around the basket severely limited his effectiveness, allowing defenders to completely ignore him off the ball. Although he provided his usual point-of-attack disruption on defense, the inability to punish closeouts or finish through contact made him a liability on the other end. The massive drop-off in his scoring punch stalled multiple half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.9%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -27.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Scoring -0.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +6.0
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Onyeka Okongwu 29.4m
22
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.1

Completely shattered his typical offensive profile by stepping out and torching the defense from beyond the arc. This unexpected floor-spacing neutralized the opponent's rim protection and opened up driving lanes for the guards. Combined with solid drop-coverage execution on the other end, his two-way versatility was the engine of the lineup.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +18.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.7

A disastrous shooting performance completely tanked his value, as he repeatedly bricked open looks and stalled offensive momentum. To his credit, he tried to salvage his night with relentless energy, posting a stellar hustle rating by chasing long rebounds and diving for loose balls. However, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions was simply too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 22.5%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Scoring -2.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
CJ McCollum 27.4m
20
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.2

Defensive apathy and a lack of secondary playmaking undermined a highly efficient scoring night. He was repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll actions, bleeding points at the point of attack while offering minimal resistance. The smooth perimeter shot-making simply couldn't outpace the structural damage caused by his defensive limitations.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -30.3
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Scoring +14.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.6

Failed to exert his usual gravitational pull on the offense, attempting too few shots to truly stretch the defense. He worked hard off the ball, as evidenced by solid hustle and defensive metrics, but his passivity allowed the opposition to clog the paint. A floor-spacer who doesn't command defensive attention ultimately hurts the unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jock Landale 18.6m
3
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

An inability to convert easy looks around the basket completely derailed his offensive impact. He was physically overmatched in the paint and settled for ill-advised perimeter jumpers, leading to empty possessions that killed momentum. While he battled defensively, the offensive ineptitude forced the coaching staff to look elsewhere.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 19.0%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -46.6
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring -2.5
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +7.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

Operated as an offensive ghost, failing to attempt a single shot or draw defensive attention during his stint. He provided decent energy as a weak-side helper, but his complete lack of offensive involvement essentially forced his team to play four-on-five. The inability to establish any interior presence made his minutes a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -60.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

Struggled to find the pace of the game during a brief appearance, looking a step slow on defensive closeouts. His lone offensive contribution came from a broken play rather than within the flow of the offense. A lack of tangible hustle or disruption kept him from making a positive mark.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -60.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Pelle Larsson 31.9m
12
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.1

Sustained his highly efficient finishing streak by attacking closeouts and finding soft spots in the defense. A massive hustle rating indicates he was first to loose balls and consistently blew up opponent actions on the perimeter. His low-usage, high-effort role perfectly stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +9.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +7.6
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bam Adebayo 27.2m
17
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.9

Anchored the scheme with a dominant defensive rating, consistently erasing dribble penetration and blowing up pick-and-roll actions. He bounced back from a recent shooting slump by bullying smaller matchups in the paint for high-percentage looks. His ability to operate as a defensive hub while punishing switches dictated the tempo whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +49.2
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Andrew Wiggins 27.0m
13
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

While his perimeter stroke was falling, erratic shot selection inside the arc dragged down his overall offensive value. He struggled to create separation against primary defenders, leading to forced mid-range attempts that stalled possessions. The defensive metrics remained passable, but the empty offensive trips inside the paint proved costly.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Davion Mitchell 26.5m
7
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.9

Off-ball pressure and point-of-attack harassment drove a stellar defensive impact, completely disrupting the opposing backcourt's rhythm. Even with his scoring volume dipping significantly below his recent average, his pristine shot selection and relentless screen navigation kept his value firmly in the green. He sacrificed offensive touches to focus entirely on locking down the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +24.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense +1.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S Norman Powell 24.9m
15
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.4

Subpar perimeter efficiency cratered his overall impact as he repeatedly settled for contested looks early in the shot clock. The heavy volume of missed triples fueled long rebounds and opponent transition opportunities. While he flashed some defensive resistance, his inability to find a rhythm from deep derailed the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +38.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Scoring +8.9
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.8

Faded into the background offensively, showing uncharacteristic passivity that allowed the defense to sag off him. While his efficiency remained solid, his reluctance to attack the rim or force the issue in isolation stalled the half-court offense. A lack of high-leverage defensive plays failed to offset his quiet scoring night.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +33.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Tyler Herro 23.3m
24
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.8

Carved up drop coverages with surgical precision, utilizing elite shot-making to generate a massive box creation score. His ability to hit tough, contested jumpers off the bounce broke the opponent's defensive scheme and opened up the floor for everyone else. He completely dictated the half-court pace during a pivotal third-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Scoring +20.1
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Kel'el Ware 18.1m
14
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.3

Capitalized on extended minutes by dominating the glass and stretching the floor, forcing opposing bigs out of their comfort zones. Though his interior finishing was slightly erratic, the sheer volume of extra possessions he generated outweighed the missed bunnies. His willingness to confidently step into trail threes completely altered the spacing dynamics.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +14.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.5

Made his mark entirely through grit and positional awareness, logging excellent hustle and defensive metrics despite a quiet scoring night. He consistently made the right rotations, deterred drives at the nail, and kept the ball moving offensively. This was a textbook example of a low-usage player elevating a lineup through sheer effort and discipline.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +5.4
Defense +4.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.6

Struggled to make an imprint during his brief stint, largely due to missed defensive assignments that compromised the shell. His perfect shooting mark was purely a product of one opportunistic cut rather than sustained offensive involvement. The negative defensive rating highlights his difficulty navigating off-ball screens in limited action.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense -2.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.7

Barely registered on the radar during his brief appearance, acting strictly as a ball-mover on the perimeter. He failed to generate any defensive events or hustle plays to swing the momentum. The negative overall impact reflects a completely passive shift where he simply occupied space.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +38.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.6

Maximized a very brief cameo by immediately spacing the floor and knocking down a quick-trigger jumper. His gravity pulled defenders away from the paint, instantly improving the offensive geometry. It was a flawless, albeit tiny, shift that provided exactly the spark the coaching staff asked for.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +38.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Injected immediate energy into the lineup by confidently taking and making his looks in garbage time. He capitalized on broken defensive coverages to find easy scoring pockets, doubling his usual output in just a few minutes. Despite minor defensive lapses, his aggressive offensive mindset made the short shift a net positive.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg +38.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Dru Smith 2.7m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.9

Offered virtually no resistance or offensive utility during his short run, resulting in a quick hook. A forced, out-of-rhythm perimeter attempt highlighted a disjointed shift where he looked out of sync with the offensive sets. The lack of any hustle stats further underscored a completely empty rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +38.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0