Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIA lead BKN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
BKN 2P — 3P —
MIA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 177 attempts

BKN BKN Shot-making Δ

Porter Jr. Hard 3/17 -11.8
Traore 5/12 -1.2
Wolf Open 5/10 -1.4
Williams Hard 3/10 -1.8
Clowney 4/8 +0.3
Saraf Open 3/7 -2.6
Claxton Open 2/7 -3.9
Sharpe Open 5/6 +2.1
Mann 3/5 +1.0
Minott Hard 0/2 -2.2

MIA MIA Shot-making Δ

Adebayo 11/24 -4.7
Herro 8/15 +2.4
Jaquez Jr. Open 6/13 -1.7
Wiggins 5/9 +1.2
Ware Open 5/8 +0.8
Fontecchio Hard 3/6 +2.5
Mitchell 3/5 +2.5
Larsson Open 1/5 -4.4
Jakučionis 2/4 +0.3
Gardner Hard 1/1 +1.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BKN
MIA
33/86 Field Goals 45/91
38.4% Field Goal % 49.5%
6/32 3-Pointers 13/36
18.8% 3-Point % 36.1%
26/30 Free Throws 21/24
86.7% Free Throw % 87.5%
49.4% True Shooting % 61.0%
54 Total Rebounds 53
10 Offensive 14
28 Defensive 32
24 Assists 28
1.26 Assist/TO Ratio 2.33
18 Turnovers 12
6 Steals 13
5 Blocks 8
19 Fouls 19
54 Points in Paint 62
13 Fast Break Pts 23
11 Points off TOs 20
15 Second Chance Pts 17
46 Bench Points 55
2 Largest Lead 27
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Bam Adebayo
23 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 35.0 MIN
+30.38
2
Kel'el Ware
11 PTS · 13 REB · 1 AST · 29.0 MIN
+21.52
3
Jaime Jaquez Jr.
20 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 27.4 MIN
+17.7
4
Day'Ron Sharpe
10 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 17.3 MIN
+15.97
5
Andrew Wiggins
13 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 27.0 MIN
+14.12
6
Noah Clowney
17 PTS · 7 REB · 0 AST · 27.3 MIN
+13.54
7
Ziaire Williams
16 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 22.9 MIN
+13.41
8
Simone Fontecchio
12 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 20.3 MIN
+11.13
9
Tyler Herro
22 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 27.7 MIN
+10.71
10
Kasparas Jakučionis
9 PTS · 1 REB · 5 AST · 22.2 MIN
+9.42
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:08 S. Fontecchio REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 98–124
Q4 0:11 MISS J. Wilson 3PT 98–124
Q4 0:25 K. Ware driving floating Jump Shot (11 PTS) 98–124
Q4 0:26 K. Ware REBOUND (Off:7 Def:6) 98–122
Q4 0:30 MISS K. Jakučionis 25' 3PT 98–122
Q4 0:41 G. Nelson Free Throw 2 of 2 (3 PTS) 98–122
Q4 0:41 TEAM offensive REBOUND 97–122
Q4 0:41 MISS G. Nelson Free Throw 1 of 2 97–122
Q4 0:41 J. Young shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Nelson 2 FT) 97–122
Q4 0:41 TEAM offensive REBOUND 97–122
Q4 0:43 MISS B. Saraf 25' 3PT 97–122
Q4 0:58 S. Fontecchio step out-of-bounds TURNOVER (1 TO) 97–122
Q4 1:13 G. Nelson Free Throw 2 of 2 (2 PTS) 97–122
Q4 1:13 G. Nelson Free Throw 1 of 2 (1 PTS) 96–122
Q4 1:13 K. Ware shooting personal FOUL (5 PF) (Nelson 2 FT) 95–122

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

MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 35.0m
23
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+33.0

An absolute masterclass in defensive anchoring generated a massive positive impact, completely shutting down the interior. Even with a high volume of missed jumpers, his sheer defensive gravity and rim deterrence controlled the game's tempo. The performance was defined by his switchability, blowing up pick-and-rolls before they could develop.

Shooting
FG 11/24 (45.8%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.9%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Scoring +12.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +11.4
Defense +11.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 6
BLK 1
TO 0
S Tyler Herro 27.7m
22
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.6

Despite efficient scoring volume, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to defensive vulnerabilities that opponents relentlessly targeted. He gave up nearly as much on the perimeter as he produced on offense. The scoring numbers masked a tendency to get lost on off-ball screens, leading to easy opponent buckets.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Scoring +17.1
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Andrew Wiggins 27.0m
13
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.8

Steady two-way play anchored his positive impact, combining timely shot-making with disciplined perimeter defense. He consistently punished closeouts with decisive drives to the rim. His ability to seamlessly switch across multiple positions stifled the opponent's wing creation.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +7.0
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Davion Mitchell 25.8m
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.1

Point-of-attack defensive pressure was the main driver of his value, harassing ball-handlers into rushed decisions. He picked his spots well offensively, hitting timely perimeter shots to keep the defense honest. His relentless ball pressure at the top of the key set the tone for the entire defensive unit.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Pelle Larsson 18.5m
3
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.5

A severe regression in scoring efficiency completely derailed his usual offensive rhythm, breaking a streak of highly efficient outings. While he still contributed through high-effort hustle plays, the missed shots killed crucial offensive runs. His inability to convert open looks from the perimeter allowed the defense to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +36.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Kel'el Ware 29.0m
11
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+20.5

Elite rim protection and relentless activity on the glass fueled a highly impactful performance. He dominated the interior, altering shots and securing extra possessions through sheer physical effort. His vertical spacing as a lob threat completely warped the opposing defense's rotation scheme.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +14.6
Defense +8.1
Turnovers -6.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 3
20
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.1

Crafty footwork and decisive drives into the paint generated a highly efficient offensive showing. He consistently read the defense perfectly, exploiting mismatches in the mid-post. His disciplined positional defense added quiet but significant value to his overall positive footprint.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +25.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Scoring +13.7
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +4.4
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
9
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.2

Excellent defensive anticipation and active hands drove his positive impact, constantly disrupting the opponent's offensive flow. He supplemented this with a surprising scoring punch, capitalizing on broken plays. His ability to read passing lanes and ignite transition opportunities defined his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +27.7
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

A sudden perimeter shooting outburst provided a much-needed offensive spark, punishing defenders who sagged off him. He leveraged this scoring gravity to open up driving lanes for his teammates. Solid team defense ensured his offensive explosion resulted in a net positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +37.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Maximized a very short stint by knocking down his only look and staying within the defensive scheme. He provided a quick burst of spacing without forcing any unnecessary action. A perfectly executed role-player shift that kept the team's momentum moving forward.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +66.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.9

A brief and ineffective appearance where he failed to generate any offensive traction. He struggled to stay in front of his man defensively, leading to a quick negative impact. The stint was marred by a lack of physical presence at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Nic Claxton 27.9m
4
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.7

Strong defensive positioning and rim deterrence kept his defensive metrics high, but a stark drop in offensive involvement dragged down his overall impact. He struggled to find his usual lob threats, leading to stagnant possessions when he was involved in the pick-and-roll. The lack of interior scoring gravity allowed the defense to cheat onto perimeter shooters.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg -32.2
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Noah Clowney 27.3m
17
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.4

A massive scoring surge fueled a highly positive box score, capitalizing on defensive breakdowns to find easy looks inside. His defensive rotations were crisp, adding substantial value as a weak-side rim deterrent. This breakout performance was defined by aggressive rim-running that completely caught the defense off guard.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -24.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Scoring +13.2
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Terance Mann 26.7m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.0

While he found more scoring success than usual, his overall impact was dragged into the red by hidden negatives like poor spacing and defensive lapses. He failed to generate meaningful stops at the point of attack, neutralizing his efficient interior finishing. The scoring bump was essentially hollow calories that didn't translate to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -24.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense -2.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.0

Disastrous perimeter shot selection completely tanked his overall impact, as he repeatedly forced contested looks from deep. The sheer volume of empty possessions derailed the offense's rhythm and allowed the opponent to leak out in transition. Despite a marginal positive hustle metric, his inability to space the floor effectively rendered him a massive net negative.

Shooting
FG 3/17 (17.6%)
3PT 0/9 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 24.0%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -33.8
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Scoring -2.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Nolan Traore 22.8m
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.6

An uptick in scoring volume masked a highly detrimental overall floor game characterized by forced shots and likely high turnover rates. His offensive decision-making actively hurt the team's flow, negating the points he put on the board. The performance was defined by tunnel vision on drives that repeatedly stalled ball movement.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 32.2%
Net Rtg -46.9
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Scoring +9.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -14.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
Ben Saraf 25.2m
6
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-16.9

Elite hustle and defensive metrics were entirely undone by a sputtering offensive showing. He generated extra possessions through sheer effort, but failed to capitalize on them due to passive shot selection and poor execution. His inability to punish drop coverage made him an offensive liability despite his defensive tenacity.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -14.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
16
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.6

High-level defensive engagement and relentless hustle plays were the primary engines behind his strong positive impact. He consistently disrupted passing lanes and closed out under control, making life miserable for opposing wings. Even with streaky shooting, his two-way energy set the tone for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -24.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Danny Wolf 20.7m
11
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.3

A solid scoring bump was offset by underlying inefficiencies, likely stemming from poor transition defense or costly fouls. He showed flashes of offensive versatility, but gave the points right back on the other end by failing to contain the pick-and-roll. This neutralized his offensive contributions, leaving him with a slightly negative footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +4.4
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.4

Absolute dominance on the interior drove a massive positive impact, as he converted nearly every look around the basket. His physical screen-setting created wide-open lanes for the guards all night. The performance was anchored by relentless positioning that punished smaller defenders in the paint.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -12.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Scoring +9.1
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +10.2
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Minott 14.3m
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.6

Complete offensive invisibility cratered his impact despite putting together an absolute clinic on the defensive end. He locked down his primary matchup, but his hesitance to even look at the rim allowed defenders to completely abandon him. The stark contrast between his defensive brilliance and offensive zero defined his night.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Made the most of a very short run by executing within the offensive flow and avoiding mistakes. He provided a quick burst of positive energy, drawing attention in the paint to free up shooters. A reliable, albeit brief, showing that kept the team's momentum stable.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.2%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.7
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
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

Relegated to deep garbage time, he failed to register any meaningful offensive production. He essentially ran out the clock without altering the game's geometry or defensive structure. His inability to find the flow of the game during limited minutes resulted in a slightly negative footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
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
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.4

Struggled to make any positive mark during a brief garbage-time stint, looking out of sync with the offensive sets. His negative impact was driven by empty possessions and a failure to stretch the defense. The appearance was categorized by passive positioning that clogged driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1