GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 35.0m
24
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.4

An aggressive offensive approach and surprising touch from beyond the arc fueled a massive bounce-back performance. Stretching the floor effectively pulled opposing bigs out of the paint and opened up driving lanes. His two-way versatility dictated the tempo whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 35.0m -17.6
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Pelle Larsson 34.5m
20
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.6

Errant perimeter shooting dragged down an otherwise productive offensive outing. He forced several contested looks from beyond the arc, disrupting the team's half-court flow. Despite the deep shooting woes, his ability to score inside the arc kept his impact near neutral.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 34.5m -17.5
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tyler Herro 33.1m
18
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.8

Despite highly effective scoring, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to defensive limitations. Opponents actively targeted him in isolation, neutralizing the value of his hot shooting. The inability to generate stops at the point of attack proved costly during key stretches.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 33.1m -16.6
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Andrew Wiggins 31.0m
12
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.1

Smothering perimeter defense was the primary driver behind his highly positive impact score. Consistently blowing up pick-and-roll actions and contesting shots at the rim anchored the defensive unit. The elite defensive effort more than compensated for a streaky shooting night.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +5.4
Defense +8.7
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 31.0m -15.6
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Davion Mitchell 25.0m
10
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.2

Poor point-of-attack defense and inefficient finishing inside the arc resulted in a heavily negative rating. Navigating screens proved difficult, allowing too much dribble penetration that collapsed the defensive shell. The defensive breakdowns completely overshadowed his perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.1
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 25.0m -12.6
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kel'el Ware 28.6m
13
pts
15
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.2

Total domination on the interior drove a massive positive impact score. The rookie controlled the paint with relentless energy, generating crucial second-chance opportunities while altering shots at the rim. This performance showcased his ability to anchor the middle and finish efficiently through contact.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +27.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +4.5
Defense +6.0
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 28.6m -14.5
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.1

A lack of defensive resistance and off-ball impact dragged his score down despite an effective shooting night. He was too easily moved off his spots on defense, giving up high-percentage looks. The offensive output simply couldn't outpace the defensive concessions on the other end.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 24.9m -12.5
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

A completely passive offensive stint resulted in a significant negative impact during his rotation minutes. Failing to apply any rim pressure or create advantages allowed the defense to rest. The lack of aggression stalled the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg +35.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 11.8m -5.8
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

A disastrous shooting stint single-handedly cratered his impact score. He forced multiple contested jumpers that led directly to transition opportunities for the opponent. The complete lack of offensive rhythm made him a liability during his brief time on the court.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +46.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total -3.3
Avg player in 8.8m -4.5
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Dru Smith 7.3m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.9

Exceptional defensive intensity and high-energy hustle plays maximized his limited minutes. Disrupting passing lanes provided instant sparkplug energy off the bench. Capitalizing on his lone shooting opportunity perfectly complemented his defensive havoc.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 7.3m -3.8
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 39.0m
20
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.3

Inefficient finishing inside completely tanked his overall impact score. Forcing too many contested attempts in traffic squandered valuable possessions. While his relentless pursuit of loose balls generated extra opportunities, the poor conversion rate negated that hustle.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/12 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 39.0m -19.6
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kevin Durant 37.2m
32
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+17.6

Elite shot-making inside the arc anchored a dominant offensive showing. He consistently punished mismatches in the mid-range, generating high-quality looks that stabilized the offense. A strong defensive rating shows he was engaged on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +27.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.9
Raw total +36.4
Avg player in 37.2m -18.8
Impact +17.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Tari Eason 35.8m
10
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.3

A barrage of missed shots dragged down his overall impact despite solid defensive contributions. Settling for too many perimeter looks stalled offensive momentum and resulted in empty possessions. His activity on the glass couldn't fully offset the poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.3
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 35.8m -18.1
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Reed Sheppard 35.8m
14
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.2

Exceptional hustle metrics kept his impact in the green despite a barrage of missed perimeter shots. He remained highly active off the ball, generating deflections and loose ball recoveries. The willingness to let it fly from deep stretched the defense, even if the conversion rate was subpar.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +7.3
Defense +4.1
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 35.8m -18.0
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Alperen Sengun 34.8m
13
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.8

A noticeable drop in offensive aggression and finishing efficiency limited his typical gravity. The usually reliable big man struggled to convert around the basket, breaking a streak of highly effective outings. Despite the offensive dip, his defensive positioning remained a positive factor.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.1
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 34.8m -17.5
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 69.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

Invisible on the offensive end, his failure to connect on spot-up opportunities severely hurt floor spacing. This continues a troubling trend of empty shooting nights, allowing opponents to completely ignore him on the perimeter. The defensive metrics weren't strong enough to justify the offensive dead weight.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -31.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 15.5m -7.8
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Clint Capela 13.1m
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Provided a sudden burst of interior production in limited minutes to boost his overall rating. Capitalizing on dump-off passes and offensive putbacks allowed him to significantly outperform his recent output. His brief stint provided a reliable vertical threat that forced defensive adjustments.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 13.1m -6.5
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jeff Green 12.0m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Steady defensive positioning and timely rotations kept his impact slightly positive. The veteran provided essential stability during his minutes by avoiding costly mistakes or bad fouls. A couple of converted looks inside the arc were enough to keep the defense honest.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 12.0m -6.1
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Defensive lapses quickly erased any value gained from his brief offensive punch. Opposing guards easily navigated past him, leading to damaging dribble penetration. The negative defensive impact overshadowed a relatively effective shooting cameo.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Offense +1.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 8.5m -4.3
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

A complete lack of offensive involvement rendered his minutes largely ineffective. He failed to assert himself on either end during a brief rotation stint. The inability to generate any offensive gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 7.7m -3.9
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Barely saw the floor in a fleeting garbage-time appearance. There was not enough court time to register any meaningful statistical impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.6m -0.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0