GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Tyler Herro 31.1m
25
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.3

Scoring volume masked a detrimental habit of coughing up the basketball in critical moments. The sheer cost of his live-ball turnovers and a handful of ill-advised deep threes dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.7%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.0
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 31.1m -18.8
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Pelle Larsson 30.5m
16
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.4

Offensive rhythm was completely undermined by sloppy ball-handling and forced passes into traffic. Those costly turnovers generated easy transition points for the opponent, turning a decent shooting night into a stark negative impact.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 30.5m -18.5
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bam Adebayo 24.9m
21
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.9

Dominated the interior matchups by drawing fouls and finishing through contact, compensating for his missed perimeter attempts. His ability to anchor the defense while carrying a heavy offensive load created a massive advantage during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +19.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.5
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 24.9m -15.2
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Andrew Wiggins 22.9m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Swapped his usual scoring punch for lockdown perimeter defense, consistently disrupting the opponent's primary actions. While his outside shot abandoned him, his relentless point-of-attack pressure salvaged a positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.5
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 22.9m -13.9
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Davion Mitchell 22.9m
2
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.5

Provided his signature on-ball harassment, but was an absolute non-factor as a scoring threat. Opponents sagged off him completely, clogging the driving lanes and stalling the half-court offense enough to negate his defensive value.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 22.9m -14.0
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.7

Operated as a highly efficient hub in the mid-post, picking apart the defense with surgical passing and timely cuts. However, a cluster of foul calls and occasional spacing issues prevented his stellar box score from translating into a dominant net impact.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 32.6m -19.8
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kel'el Ware 31.7m
16
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+31.2

Put on an absolute masterclass in rim protection, altering countless shots to generate a staggering +25.1 defensive rating. Combined with elite shot selection and relentless activity on the glass, he completely dictated the terms of the game.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +29.6
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +8.3
Defense +25.1
Raw total +50.3
Avg player in 31.7m -19.1
Impact +31.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 5
BLK 7
TO 1
Dru Smith 21.2m
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

Capitalized on a rare extended opportunity by taking only high-percentage shots within the flow of the offense. His mistake-free approach and timely defensive rotations provided a steady, stabilizing presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +29.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 21.2m -12.9
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.7

Found his stroke from beyond the arc to break out of a recent shooting slump, but struggled with defensive discipline. Unnecessary reaching fouls and poor closeout angles gave back the value he created with his perimeter spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +46.4
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +4.7
Defense +4.6
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 20.8m -12.7
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Stepped on the court strictly to run out the clock at the end of the game. A minor rotational hiccup during that single possession registered as a tiny negative blip.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.4m -0.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

Logged less than a minute of floor time at the final buzzer. Managed to grab a quick loose ball, resulting in a perfectly neutral outing.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 0.4m -0.3
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Made the most of a 26-second garbage time appearance by staying active defensively. A quick hustle play generated a fractional positive impact before the horn sounded.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 0.4m -0.2
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
27
pts
13
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.4

Heavy reliance on the perimeter yielded 11 missed threes, dragging down his overall efficiency. While his defensive rebounding and activity kept his baseline solid, the sheer volume of empty possessions ultimately neutralized his impact.

Shooting
FG 9/24 (37.5%)
3PT 7/18 (38.9%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.2
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 35.8m -21.6
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Noah Clowney 33.8m
17
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.0

Broke out of a recent shooting slump by hunting high-quality perimeter looks, knocking down five triples to stretch the floor. His massive defensive rating (+9.4) and relentless hustle plays (+5.6) cemented a highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +5.6
Defense +9.4
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 33.8m -20.5
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Terance Mann 29.4m
7
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.3

Despite acting as a reliable connective playmaker and rebounding well for his position, hidden mistakes cratered his overall score. Costly turnovers and defensive lapses in rotation wiped out the value of his improved shooting efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.3
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 29.4m -17.8
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nic Claxton 28.0m
16
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

Uncharacteristic inefficiency around the rim plagued his offensive output, missing nine interior attempts that fueled opponent transition opportunities. The resulting negative swing completely erased his otherwise standard rim protection and rebounding contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.2%
USG% 30.1%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 28.0m -17.0
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Nolan Traore 24.9m
9
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
-7.2

Careless ball security completely derailed his stint as the primary initiator, bleeding value through live-ball turnovers. Even with excellent passing vision that generated open looks, giving the ball away at a high rate resulted in a severely negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 24.9m -15.1
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
15
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.2

Thrived as an energetic slasher, consistently beating closeouts and finishing efficiently at the rim. His off-ball movement combined with exceptional hustle plays (+5.7) drove a highly efficient two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -21.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +5.7
Defense +4.3
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 23.8m -14.3
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

Struggled to anchor the paint defensively, frequently getting caught out of position in drop coverage. The resulting foul costs and defensive breakdowns overshadowed a solid stint of offensive rebounding.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 17.7m -10.7
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Ben Saraf 15.6m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.5

Made his mark on the less glamorous end of the floor by hounding ball-handlers and blowing up screening actions. This defensive tenacity kept him in the positive despite a quiet night of offensive creation.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -57.1
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.5
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 15.6m -9.3
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Danny Wolf 14.0m
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-16.6

Looked completely out of sync on both ends, offering zero scoring punch and getting targeted repeatedly in pick-and-roll coverage. The combination of empty offensive possessions and defensive bleeding resulted in a disastrously low impact score.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -51.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense -6.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total -8.1
Avg player in 14.0m -8.5
Impact -16.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Ochai Agbaji 10.0m
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Settled for contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking the paint, missing all three of his attempts from deep. This poor shot selection, coupled with a complete lack of rebounding, dragged his brief rotation stint into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -69.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 10.0m -6.0
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Barely saw the floor during garbage time, failing to register a single counting stat. A quick foul or minor rotational mistake in his brief stint was enough to tip his minimal impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -70.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.3m -1.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Rushed his lone offensive touch during a fleeting appearance, resulting in a missed shot that hurt his efficiency. Unable to make a mark defensively, his short run ended up as a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -70.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 2.3m -1.4
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
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
-1.4

Relegated to a brief cameo after a string of productive outings, he couldn't find the flow of the game. A minor negative swing, likely from a missed rotation or quick turnover, defined his short time on the court.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -70.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.3m -1.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0