GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 34.0m
24
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.9

An unusual willingness to bomb from the outside stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point. Even with some inefficiency on the interior, his gravity as a floor-spacer opened up massive cutting lanes for teammates. Elite switchability on defense further cemented his dominant two-way footprint.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +19.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.8
Raw total +29.2
Avg player in 34.0m -19.3
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Pelle Larsson 32.8m
10
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.8

A sudden loss of finishing touch derailed what had been a highly efficient stretch of games. Consistently generating good looks but failing to convert in traffic led to empty possessions that stalled the offense. The sheer volume of missed opportunities dragged his overall impact heavily into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 32.8m -18.6
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tyler Herro 30.3m
25
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.8

Supreme shot creation against tight coverage drove a highly productive offensive shift. Punishing drop coverages with decisive pull-ups forced the opposition to constantly alter its pick-and-roll scheme. Surprisingly stout positional defense ensured he didn't give back the value he generated on the other end.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 30.3m -17.3
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Davion Mitchell 24.3m
8
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.3

Relentless point-of-attack pressure disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm just enough to break even. Navigating screens beautifully allowed him to blow up dribble hand-offs before they could materialize. Highly selective offensive execution ensured he didn't waste possessions, perfectly balancing out his low usage.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +30.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 24.3m -13.8
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Myron Gardner 16.5m
4
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.3

Defensive breakdowns on the perimeter completely overshadowed his decent work on the glass. Struggling to stay in front of quicker guards forced the defense into constant rotation and yielded open looks. That inability to contain the point of attack resulted in a net negative performance.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.4
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 16.5m -9.4
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
19
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.1

Despite a brutal night finishing around the basket, his constant off-ball movement and secondary playmaking kept the offense churning. Manufacturing value by crashing the glass generated crucial extra possessions through sheer effort. Solid defensive rotations ultimately helped offset the damage of his numerous clanked attempts.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.6
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 29.4m -16.8
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Kel'el Ware 26.0m
12
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.9

Exceptional rim protection and high-energy hustle plays defined a breakout interior performance. Consistently altering shots in the paint fueled transition opportunities for the guards. Smart rim-running and lob-catching capitalized on defensive breakdowns to maximize his offensive role.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +25.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense +6.3
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 26.0m -14.7
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
Dru Smith 22.1m
7
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.7

Elite defensive disruption and relentless hustle completely transformed the complexion of the second unit. Generating massive value by blowing up passing lanes secured loose balls that extended crucial possessions. Breaking out of a severe slump with timely cuts added an unexpected offensive spark.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +5.2
Defense +8.4
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 22.1m -12.5
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

A surprising scoring surge was completely undone by glaring defensive liabilities in space. While he found a rare rhythm offensively, opponents relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll actions. The points he surrendered on switches heavily outweighed his unexpected shooting efficiency.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 21.7m -12.3
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

A fleeting appearance yielded negative returns due to poor spacing and slow defensive processing. Being caught out of position on a quick rotation led to an easy breakdown for the opposition. The total lack of offensive involvement made it impossible to recover the lost value.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -83.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 2.1m -1.3
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

A rushed, ill-advised shot during a garbage-time cameo immediately dinged his impact score. Offering zero peripheral contributions meant he had no way to offset the wasted possession.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 35.1m
26
pts
1
reb
10
ast
Impact
-3.6

High-volume playmaking and perimeter shot-making were ultimately undermined by costly defensive lapses. Opposing guards consistently exploited his coverage, bleeding points on the other end of the floor. The heavy offensive burden clearly compromised his energy for point-of-attack resistance, dragging his total impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.6
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 35.1m -20.0
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jalen Duren 26.1m
24
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.9

Dominant interior finishing fueled a massive positive swing for the young big man. He consistently punished mismatches around the rim, extending a highly efficient streak that anchored the interior offense. Strong rotational positioning and rim deterrence further amplified his towering overall value.

Shooting
FG 10/12 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.5%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -37.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +22.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +29.8
Avg player in 26.1m -14.9
Impact +14.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tobias Harris 24.3m
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Passive offensive engagement limited his ceiling despite decent efficiency inside the arc. Failing to generate gravity on the perimeter led to a stagnant half-court flow during his minutes. A lack of high-leverage plays ultimately left his net impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 24.3m -13.9
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S Duncan Robinson 23.9m
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.4

A severe regression from his recent hot shooting dragged his overall impact into the negatives. Clanking nearly all of his perimeter attempts stalled the offense and allowed defenders to sag into the paint. The resulting empty possessions heavily outweighed any minor positional defense he provided.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 23.9m -13.6
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Marcus Sasser 19.5m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.7

Continuing a brutal slump, his total inability to create separation bogged down the second unit's spacing. While he generated some marginal value through active hustle plays, defenders completely ignoring him off the ball proved too costly. The resulting cramped floor severely limited his team's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 19.5m -11.2
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Physical screen-setting and sturdy post defense drove a solid positive return during his shifts. He absorbed contact well in the paint, deterring drives and forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. Timely floor-spacing from the top of the key also kept the opposing frontcourt honest.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 22.1m -12.6
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
4
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.5

Elite defensive rotations salvaged a night where his jumper completely abandoned him. Despite breaking a strong recent shooting rhythm with forced perimeter looks, his off-ball awareness consistently disrupted passing lanes. That high-level anticipation on the defensive end barely kept his overall impact above water.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.4
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 21.5m -12.2
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
5
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Errant shot selection continues to plague his offensive profile, negating otherwise solid defensive instincts. Rushing multiple attempts in traffic rather than moving the ball killed several offensive possessions. Even with above-average on-ball pressure, those wasted trips down the floor kept his final grade in the red.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -38.4
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 18.7m -10.6
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

A sharp drop-off from his recent scoring tear left a noticeable void in the perimeter attack. Struggling to navigate drop coverage, he settled for contested looks instead of attacking the teeth of the defense. Without his usual scoring gravity to bend the floor, the second-unit offense sputtered.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 15.3m -8.6
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.5

Poor spacing and defensive miscommunications severely hampered his court time. By misfiring on all his outside looks, he allowed his primary defender to roam freely and clog driving lanes for others. Getting caught out of position on multiple backcuts further compounded his negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.9
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 15.2m -8.7
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

A completely invisible stint was defined by zero hustle generation and forced outside shots. Failing to impact the game in any peripheral category, he merely took up space on the floor. The lack of defensive resistance or offensive flow resulted in a steep negative drop during his brief minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +41.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense -2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -3.3
Avg player in 8.2m -4.7
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Paul Reed 5.5m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+16.2

An explosive micro-shift from the backup big completely tilted the game's momentum. Maximizing every second on the floor, he provided relentless rim-running and disruptive weak-side defense. Capitalizing on broken plays allowed him to generate massive value in minimal time.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 47.1%
Net Rtg +86.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +6.7
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 5.5m -3.2
Impact +16.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

Brief but effective positional defense kept his limited minutes in the green. Staying vertical on drives, he executed the defensive scheme without making costly mistakes. A single opportunistic perimeter make added just enough value to secure a positive grade.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +101.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 4.5m -2.6
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1