GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Pelle Larsson 35.0m
10
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.0

A sudden freeze from the perimeter snapped his streak of hyper-efficient shooting nights, dragging his offensive impact into the red. He salvaged some value by crashing the glass and generating elite hustle metrics (+7.0), but the missed outside looks cramped the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +7.0
Defense +5.6
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 35.0m -21.5
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Andrew Wiggins 28.9m
28
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.1

Delivered an absolute masterclass in shot selection, punishing late closeouts with flawless perimeter execution. This offensive eruption more than doubled his recent output, driving a massive positive swing whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/10 (90.0%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 110.8%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +36.2
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +29.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.8
Raw total +36.0
Avg player in 28.9m -17.9
Impact +18.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bam Adebayo 26.9m
13
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.0

Dialed back his offensive volume significantly, opting for high-percentage looks rather than forcing action in the paint. The resulting efficiency bump kept him in the positive, supported by his usual foundational defensive anchoring.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +48.4
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 26.9m -16.5
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Norman Powell 26.8m
25
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.9

Slashed through defensive gaps with ruthless efficiency to build on a strong recent scoring trend. His surprisingly robust defensive metrics (+6.7) elevated this from a simple scoring binge to a highly impactful two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/7 (28.6%)
Advanced
TS% 65.5%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg +30.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.7
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 26.8m -16.5
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
12
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.9

Found a sudden offensive rhythm that doubled his usual scoring output, showing great patience in his shot selection. However, defensive lapses and poor rotational awareness (-1.4) ultimately washed away his scoring contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.4
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 22.9m -14.1
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Tyler Herro 22.9m
14
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-8.6

Clanked his way through a rough shooting night, settling for heavily contested jumpers rather than attacking the paint. The sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions severely undercut his overall value despite decent playmaking efforts.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 22.9m -14.1
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

Forced too many contested looks in the midrange, resulting in a noticeable dip from his usual offensive efficiency. Slight defensive miscommunications (-0.5) further dragged his impact score below baseline.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.5
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 22.6m -13.9
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Dru Smith 21.8m
4
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.5

Struggled to convert his offensive looks, continuing a brutal stretch of shooting inefficiency. He managed to stay near neutral by flying around defensively (+4.0) and generating extra possessions through sheer hustle.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 21.8m -13.4
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Kel'el Ware 18.7m
11
pts
15
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.7

Completely owned the glass, using his length to generate second-chance opportunities and end opponent possessions. His rim protection (+6.3) paired beautifully with efficient interior finishing to anchor the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.3
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 18.7m -11.4
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.3

Maximized a brief rotational stint by executing perfectly within the flow of the offense. His quick decision-making and sturdy defensive positioning (+2.0) provided a reliable spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 6.3m -3.9
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Barely registered an impact during a fleeting appearance, continuing a prolonged shooting slump. Failed to generate any defensive resistance or hustle stats to justify extended minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -96.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 2.5m -1.4
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Made the most of his garbage-time minutes by crashing the glass and executing defensive assignments (+2.3). His energetic rotations kept his brief stint firmly in the positive despite a couple of missed bunnies.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -96.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 2.5m -1.6
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Tossed up a pair of empty possessions during a very short stint on the floor. Lacked the defensive disruption or hustle needed to offset the missed shots.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -96.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense -1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 2.5m -1.5
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Jaylen Wells 27.1m
25
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.8

An unexpected offensive explosion drove his massive positive impact, nearly quadrupling his recent scoring average on highly efficient shot selection. His perimeter accuracy opened up driving lanes, while steady defensive positioning (+3.8) ensured he didn't give those points back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 10/13 (76.9%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.8
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 27.1m -16.7
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.5

Took a significant step back in scoring volume compared to his recent hot streak, but maximized his limited touches with near-perfect execution. The real story was his elite defensive impact (+8.7) and high-motor hustle plays, proving he can dictate a game's flow without dominating the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.7
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 25.8m -15.8
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-11.7

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc torpedoed his offensive efficiency and stalled out several possessions. His negative defensive impact compounded the erratic shooting, making him a net-negative despite showing some flashes as a secondary playmaker.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.6
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 25.5m -15.8
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.8

Continued his prolonged shooting slump, struggling to find any offensive rhythm or spacing value. While he brought decent energy and defensive resistance, his inability to punish defensive rotations severely dragged down his overall offensive rating.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 24.3m -15.0
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ty Jerome 22.4m
17
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.7

Despite struggling to find his rhythm from the floor, his overall value stayed firmly in the green thanks to excellent defensive engagement (+6.3). He managed the offense well enough to compensate for the clunky shooting, relying on disruptive perimeter defense to generate value.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 35.8%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +2.4
Defense +6.3
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 22.4m -13.8
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Javon Small 25.6m
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

Operated as a highly efficient stabilizing force on low volume, taking only what the defense gave him. His positive defensive metrics (+5.2) kept his floor high, even as he deferred more scoring responsibility than usual.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 25.6m -15.8
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
GG Jackson 25.6m
28
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.9

Completely dominated the interior matchups, converting high-percentage looks to shatter his recent scoring averages. His aggressive downhill attacks were paired with stifling defensive rotations (+7.1), resulting in a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg -23.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.1
Raw total +28.7
Avg player in 25.6m -15.8
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.2

A complete offensive disappearing act cratered his overall impact, failing to convert a single field goal attempt. Although he tried to compensate with active hustle (+3.0), the empty offensive possessions consistently killed the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -22.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 22.2m -13.7
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Cam Spencer 20.9m
0
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.8

Blanked entirely from the scoring column, extending a worrying trend of perimeter inefficiency. His playmaking flashes couldn't salvage a disastrous shooting night that allowed defenders to completely sag off him.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -23.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 20.9m -12.9
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
18
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.5

Generated consistent rim pressure to offset a streaky shooting night, keeping the offense humming. His point-of-attack defense (+6.0) was the real difference-maker, disrupting opposing guards and creating transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 35.8%
Net Rtg -45.6
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.0
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 20.6m -12.7
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3