Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CHA lead MIA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MIA 2P — 3P —
CHA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 193 attempts

MIA MIA Shot-making Δ

Adebayo 10/26 -9.5
Herro Hard 11/20 +11.3
Jaquez Jr. 8/13 +4.9
Mitchell Hard 5/9 +3.9
Ware 4/8 -0.4
Larsson Open 3/8 -3.9
Smith Open 1/5 -4.3
Gardner 2/4 +0.2
Jakučionis Hard 1/4 -1.2

CHA CHA Shot-making Δ

Ball Hard 7/22 -3.1
Knueppel Hard 9/14 +10.1
Bridges Open 5/13 -6.1
Miller Hard 7/12 +5.3
White Hard 4/11 -2.6
Williams Hard 4/8 +2.5
Diabaté Open 3/6 -1.9
James Hard 1/4 -1.3
Green 1/3 -1.7
Kalkbrenner Open 0/3 -4.0
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MIA
CHA
45/97 Field Goals 41/96
46.4% Field Goal % 42.7%
18/38 3-Pointers 19/52
47.4% 3-Point % 36.5%
20/25 Free Throws 19/20
80.0% Free Throw % 95.0%
59.3% True Shooting % 57.3%
57 Total Rebounds 58
11 Offensive 12
33 Defensive 36
31 Assists 24
5.17 Assist/TO Ratio 1.85
6 Turnovers 12
7 Steals 5
5 Blocks 9
14 Fouls 18
50 Points in Paint 42
9 Fast Break Pts 21
12 Points off TOs 11
17 Second Chance Pts 21
41 Bench Points 32
9 Largest Lead 6
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Tyler Herro
33 PTS · 9 REB · 9 AST · 37.3 MIN
+33.98
2
Brandon Miller
22 PTS · 13 REB · 5 AST · 33.7 MIN
+23.63
3
Bam Adebayo
24 PTS · 12 REB · 4 AST · 38.5 MIN
+20.2
4
Kon Knueppel
27 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 33.9 MIN
+19.92
5
Jaime Jaquez Jr.
21 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 31.3 MIN
+14.06
6
Moussa Diabaté
6 PTS · 14 REB · 1 AST · 31.1 MIN
+13.47
7
Grant Williams
12 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 18.9 MIN
+11.98
8
Kel'el Ware
10 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 30.8 MIN
+11.85
9
Dru Smith
4 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 17.5 MIN
+11.35
10
Davion Mitchell
13 PTS · 2 REB · 7 AST · 26.9 MIN
+10.42
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 B. Adebayo REBOUND (Off:3 Def:9) 128–120
Q4 0:00 MISS L. Ball 13' pullup Shot 128–120
Q4 0:07 D. Smith Free Throw 2 of 2 (4 PTS) 128–120
Q4 0:07 D. Smith Free Throw 1 of 2 (3 PTS) 127–120
Q4 0:07 S. James take personal FOUL (2 PF) (Smith 2 FT) 126–120
Q4 0:07 D. Smith REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 126–120
Q4 0:09 MISS K. Knueppel 25' 3PT 126–120
Q4 0:11 TEAM offensive REBOUND 126–120
Q4 0:15 MISS S. James 24' 3PT 126–120
Q4 0:18 B. Adebayo Free Throw 2 of 2 (24 PTS) 126–120
Q4 0:18 B. Adebayo Free Throw 1 of 2 (23 PTS) 125–120
Q4 0:18 G. Williams take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Adebayo 2 FT) 124–120
Q4 0:19 B. Miller personal FOUL (3 PF) 124–120
Q4 0:25 T. Herro REBOUND (Off:1 Def:8) 124–120
Q4 0:28 MISS L. Ball 25' 3PT 124–120

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

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 33.9m
27
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.2

Scorching perimeter efficiency punished the defense's decision to go under screens, driving a massive offensive rating. Despite the scoring explosion, his net impact was tempered by a lack of defensive resistance at the point of attack. He essentially traded baskets during his stint, though his elite shot selection kept the overall value positive.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.1%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Scoring +23.3
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +7.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 33.7m
22
pts
13
reb
5
ast
Impact
+19.0

An absolute clinic in two-way wing play, combining highly efficient three-level scoring with suffocating perimeter defense. He consistently blew up passing lanes and immediately translated those turnovers into transition points. His ability to lock down the opposing primary creator while maintaining offensive rhythm defined the game's most crucial stretch.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.5%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Scoring +18.4
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +13.6
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S LaMelo Ball 33.0m
21
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.2

Shot selection was the primary culprit for his negative impact, as he repeatedly settled for deep, contested threes early in the clock. While he generated some value through active rebounding and defensive gambles, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions crippled the team's half-court rhythm. The opponent routinely used his long misses to ignite their own fast breaks.

Shooting
FG 7/22 (31.8%)
3PT 5/15 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.9%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +9.8
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +5.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Moussa Diabaté 31.1m
6
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.1

Controlled the defensive glass and provided excellent rim deterrence, forcing opponents into tough floaters. His impact flattened out due to offensive limitations, as he clogged the paint and allowed his defender to freely roam as a helper. A classic case of elite defensive anchoring being offset by a complete lack of offensive gravity.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +16.8
Defense -0.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Miles Bridges 27.9m
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Defensive versatility was on full display, as he seamlessly switched across three positions to blow up pick-and-roll actions. However, his offensive decision-making was disastrous, frequently forcing contested mid-range pull-ups early in the shot clock. The resulting empty possessions allowed the opposition to leak out in transition, dragging his net rating deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.2%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.4

Provided vital floor spacing from the trail spot, punishing the defense every time they collapsed on drives. He communicated coverages effectively and held his ground against bigger assignments in the post, stabilizing the defensive shell. His timely corner threes during a sluggish third quarter were the catalyst for a crucial offensive run.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +7.6
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.3

Generated all of his positive value through elite drop-coverage execution, completely sealing off the restricted area. He failed to convert on his few offensive touches, but his screen-setting created wide-open driving lanes for the guards. A pure defensive anchor performance where his lack of scoring was entirely masked by his structural importance.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 0
Coby White 16.9m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.6

Stagnated the offense by over-dribbling into crowded paint areas, resulting in poor kick-out passes and forced attempts. The defensive metrics were passable, but he routinely died on screens, forcing the bigs into difficult two-on-one situations. His inability to find a rhythm from deep allowed defenders to sag off and disrupt the team's overall spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.2%
USG% 38.5%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Josh Green 13.9m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.4

Completely invisible on the offensive end, failing to punish closeouts or make decisive cuts to the rim. His defensive metrics slipped into the negative as he struggled to navigate off-ball screens, frequently losing his man on flare actions. Despite decent hustle numbers, his inability to impact the game's geometry made him a liability.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Sion James 13.8m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.5

Looked overwhelmed by the speed of the game, consistently arriving late on defensive rotations and failing to close out under control. Offensively, he hesitated on open catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing the defense to reset before forcing up low-quality looks. A rough stint defined by poor spatial awareness and a lack of decisive action.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 38.5m
24
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+20.0

A massive defensive presence and heavy rebounding volume kept his head above water, but brutal inefficiency dragged his ceiling down. Settling for heavily contested mid-range jumpers and missing multiple deep attempts severely damaged his offensive value. His ability to anchor the drop coverage prevented his poor shot selection from becoming a fatal liability.

Shooting
FG 10/26 (38.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.6%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Scoring +11.6
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +14.3
Defense +1.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Tyler Herro 37.3m
33
pts
9
reb
9
ast
Impact
+27.9

Elite shot-making from beyond the arc completely warped the opponent's defensive shell, driving a massive box score impact. He consistently punished under-screens during pick-and-roll sequences, generating high-value looks with minimal wasted motion. Surprisingly engaged on the defensive glass, which added hidden value to an already dominant offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 8/10 (80.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.4%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Scoring +26.7
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +9.4
Hustle +5.6
Defense -2.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Pelle Larsson 28.5m
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.7

His overall impact tanked due to a sharp drop in scoring efficiency compared to his recent hot streak, forcing empty possessions. He struggled to find his rhythm against aggressive perimeter closeouts, leading to disrupted offensive flow and poorly timed turnovers. The positive defensive metrics couldn't salvage the negative value of his stalled half-court creation.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +4.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Davion Mitchell 26.9m
13
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.1

Despite highly efficient shooting, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to poor point-of-attack resistance and costly live-ball turnovers. Opposing guards consistently broke containment against him in isolation, neutralizing his offensive contributions. The lack of secondary hustle plays further exposed his struggles to dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Myron Gardner 16.1m
6
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.1

Defensive rotations were crisp, yielding a solid positive impact on that end, but his overall footprint remained essentially neutral. He spent most of his minutes floating on the weak side rather than actively punishing defensive gaps. A lack of offensive aggression kept his net impact hovering just below zero despite solid positional awareness.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +19.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Scoring +3.9
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
21
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.4

Excellent spatial awareness and timely cuts generated high-quality looks, driving a strong offensive output. He generated extra possessions with active hands in the passing lanes, though occasional defensive lapses on backdoor cuts muted his overall rating. A perfectly balanced, albeit unspectacular, two-way performance that kept the second unit stable.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.6%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Scoring +16.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kel'el Ware 30.8m
10
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Rim protection was spectacular, as he repeatedly altered shots from the weak side and deterred interior drives. However, his insistence on taking low-percentage perimeter shots squandered valuable offensive possessions. If he had rolled hard to the rim instead of popping, his net impact would have easily swung positive.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 0
Dru Smith 17.5m
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

An absolute menace on the defensive end, blowing up dribble hand-offs and fighting through screens with relentless energy. His offensive struggles were completely masked by his ability to generate deflections and secure loose balls. He proved that a guard can dominate a stint without making a single jump shot just by dictating the physical terms of the matchup.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Scoring +0.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense +7.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.7

Active hands and solid positional defense kept him playable, but his inability to connect on spot-up attempts hurt the spacing. He passed up several driving lanes in favor of contested perimeter looks, stalling the offense. The hustle metrics show effort, but the lack of shot-making ultimately resulted in a slight negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -40.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1