GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 41.9m
83
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+44.8

A historic, high-volume scoring explosion completely shattered his usual offensive profile and drove a colossal +44.8 net impact. He relentlessly hunted his shot, using a barrage of pull-up threes to obliterate the opposing frontcourt's drop coverage. Even with a mountain of missed field goals, the sheer magnitude of his offensive creation and dominant defensive anchoring made this a legendary two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 20/43 (46.5%)
3PT 7/22 (31.8%)
FT 36/43 (83.7%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 55.8%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.9m
Offense +50.2
Hustle +6.6
Defense +12.1
Raw total +68.9
Avg player in 41.9m -24.1
Impact +44.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 29
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 55.2%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 5
5
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.8

Passive offensive tendencies and a refusal to look at the rim allowed defenders to completely sag off him, clogging the half-court spacing. While he generated positive hustle metrics by diving for loose balls, his hesitation to shoot actively harmed the team's offensive flow. A string of late-clock violations directly stemmed from his reluctance to initiate the offense.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 29.8m -17.1
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Myron Gardner 25.7m
4
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.7

Providing excellent weak-side rim protection yielded a strong defensive rating, yet his overall score suffered from poor ball security. He committed several unforced errors while trying to act as a secondary playmaker at the top of the key. Those sloppy turnovers directly fed the opponent's transition attack, erasing the value of his gritty interior defense.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.8
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 25.7m -15.0
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Pelle Larsson 24.4m
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Elite perimeter defense and excellent rotational awareness kept him on the floor, but a cold shooting night dragged his net impact slightly below zero. He consistently misfired on wide-open corner threes, stalling the offense and snapping his streak of high-efficiency outings. The inability to punish the defense for collapsing inside ultimately outweighed his stellar work on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.9
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 24.4m -14.1
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Davion Mitchell 24.1m
12
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.6

Suffocating point-of-attack defense against the opposing primary ball-handler set the tone and anchored his positive impact score. He consistently fought over screens and blew up dribble hand-offs, generating crucial stops in the third quarter. Despite clanking all of his attempts from beyond the arc, his relentless defensive pressure and efficient interior finishing kept him firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +23.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.1
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 24.1m -13.9
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.2

A severe lack of aggression resulted in a massive scoring drop-off and a negative overall rating. He repeatedly passed up favorable matchups in the post, deferring to teammates and allowing the defense to off-load pressure. A few costly offensive fouls while setting screens further diminished a surprisingly passive outing.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.4%
Net Rtg +23.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 27.9m -16.0
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Dru Smith 22.8m
5
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.9

Stellar defensive rotations and active hands in the passing lanes were completely undone by disastrous ball security. He struggled mightily against full-court pressure, coughing up the ball in the backcourt multiple times during a crucial second-half stretch. Those live-ball mistakes heavily penalized his score, ruining what was otherwise a massive defensive upgrade.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.5
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 22.8m -13.2
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
18
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.9

Flawless execution on spot-up opportunities and elite shot selection fueled a massive surge in his net impact. He expertly relocated along the perimeter during scrambles, punishing defensive breakdowns with lethal precision. This hyper-efficient scoring burst provided a vital offensive lifeline and completely reversed his recent shooting slump.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 108.2%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.9
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 22.3m -12.8
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

High-motor plays and excellent weak-side help defense defined a highly productive stint off the bench. He consistently crashed the offensive glass and secured extra possessions, maximizing his limited touches. His ability to seamlessly switch onto smaller guards on the perimeter was the primary driver behind his positive rating.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 18.9m -10.9
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

Logged barely over a minute of action, managing only a single missed shot inside. A quick contested rebound provided a marginal hustle boost, but his overall impact remained perfectly neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 1.1m -0.7
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

A brief garbage-time appearance was marred by a rushed, low-quality shot attempt. He failed to register any positive defensive or hustle metrics during his fleeting time on the court.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.1m -0.6
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Will Riley 39.6m
22
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.3

The scoring punch looks impressive on the surface, but a barrage of live-ball turnovers and forced reads dragged his net impact down significantly. He repeatedly attacked crowded driving lanes in the third quarter, coughing up possessions that fueled opponent fast breaks. Consequently, his solid perimeter shooting was overshadowed by costly mistakes in half-court initiation.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.0
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 39.6m -22.9
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Bub Carrington 36.0m
12
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-18.6

Impact cratered to a catastrophic -18.6 due to a severe lack of ball security and poor decision-making under pressure. A disastrous stretch of forced passes against the press in the second half handed the opposition easy transition buckets. Even with solid defensive metrics, the sheer volume of wasted possessions made him a massive net negative.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense +3.2
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 36.0m -20.8
Impact -18.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 7
S Bilal Coulibaly 34.6m
10
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-5.0

Despite excellent point-of-attack defense and active hands that drove a strong hustle rating, his overall impact plummeted into the red. Poor shot selection against set defenses led to several empty possessions and transition opportunities going the other way. His inability to finish at the rim during the second half completely negated his defensive utility.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.5%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -20.2
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 34.6m -19.9
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tre Johnson 22.6m
17
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.3

A complete lack of secondary contributions and defensive resistance tanked his overall rating despite a notable scoring spike. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation during the fourth quarter, bleeding points that erased the value of his perimeter shot-making. Without any hustle plays to offset his blown coverages, the scoring volume proved to be empty calories.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +8.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 22.6m -13.0
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Alex Sarr 19.7m
28
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+18.4

An absolute offensive eruption defined this performance, as he relentlessly exploited mismatches in the pick-and-pop game. The massive positive net impact was driven by elite shot quality and decisive finishing rather than just raw volume. His ability to punish drop coverage during a crucial second-quarter run completely tilted the floor.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 73.7%
USG% 39.2%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +23.9
Hustle +3.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +29.6
Avg player in 19.7m -11.2
Impact +18.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Anthony Gill 25.1m
6
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.3

Even while maintaining his streak of hyper-efficient shooting, a sudden spike in offensive fouls and illegal screens tanked his value. He struggled to navigate the opponent's switching scheme, clogging the paint and turning the ball over. Those hidden mistakes completely overshadowed a solid defensive effort and active rebounding.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 25.1m -14.5
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaden Hardy 23.0m
17
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Tunnel vision and a reliance on low-percentage isolation jumpers severely hampered his overall effectiveness. He repeatedly ignored open teammates on the weak side, leading to stalled possessions and a negative defensive rating as he was slow to get back in transition. The scoring output simply could not mask the damage done by his inefficient shot diet.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +3.7
Defense -1.1
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 23.0m -13.3
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

Snapping a highly efficient streak, his shot selection regressed as he forced multiple contested looks early in the shot clock. While he remained active on the glass and generated positive hustle metrics, foul trouble on closeouts negated that effort. A pattern of biting on pump fakes on the perimeter ultimately drove his score into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 18.0m -10.3
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.7

Pounding the air out of the ball and settling for contested floaters resulted in a highly inefficient stint that severely damaged his rating. His inability to break down the primary defender stalled the offense entirely during the second unit's minutes. The resulting empty trips and subsequent transition scrambles heavily penalized his net score.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.5%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense -4.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total -2.1
Avg player in 14.7m -8.6
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Limited minutes yielded high-energy hustle plays, but poor positional awareness on defense kept his overall impact underwater. He struggled to anchor the paint against physical bigs, leading to easy interior looks for the opponent. The steep drop-off in offensive involvement further capped his ability to positively influence the game.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -57.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense -1.0
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 6.7m -3.8
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2