GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 38.5m
20
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.8

An absolute masterclass in defensive anchoring yielded a towering impact on that end, as he completely neutralized the opponent's interior attack. However, his overall net score was suppressed by a clunky offensive outing featuring several forced, contested jumpers. He continues to struggle with his perimeter efficiency, but his rim deterrence remains game-changing.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +13.6
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 38.5m -19.4
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 2
S Pelle Larsson 35.1m
15
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.9

Exceptional off-ball movement and relentless hustle plays defined a highly impactful two-way performance. He sustained his recent streak of elite efficiency by strictly taking in-rhythm jumpers and punishing late closeouts. Defensively, his ability to navigate screens and disrupt passing lanes cemented his value as a premier glue guy.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.5%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 35.1m -17.7
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tyler Herro 31.1m
10
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-12.8

A severe regression in shot quality and execution completely cratered his impact, as a barrage of clanked perimeter looks derailed the offense. He struggled to separate from his primary defender, settling for low-percentage, late-clock heaves. The sheer volume of empty offensive possessions resulted in a disastrously negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.5
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 31.1m -15.7
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kel'el Ware 27.4m
13
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.4

Vertical spacing and elite rim protection allowed him to dominate his minutes, resulting in a stellar overall net impact. He capitalized on drop coverages by finishing decisively through contact while altering numerous shots on the other end. This was a breakout two-way showing that perfectly blended offensive efficiency with defensive intimidation.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -33.2
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.1
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 27.4m -13.7
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Davion Mitchell 25.5m
14
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.7

Pushing the pace and converting high-quality looks in transition drove a highly productive offensive shift. His signature hustle was on full display, though he surprisingly gave up ground defensively against bigger assignments on switches. Ultimately, his efficient shot selection kept his net impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +3.7
Defense -0.9
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 25.5m -12.9
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
20
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.1

Sluggish perimeter execution nullified his ability to attack the rim, as missed outside shots allowed the defense to sag into the paint. While he managed to salvage some value through disciplined on-ball defense, his offensive inefficiency dragged his net rating down to neutral. He forced too many contested drives into heavy traffic rather than moving the ball.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 31.1m -15.6
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
22
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.1

Surgical footwork in the mid-post and decisive cutting shredded the opposing defense, leading to a massive spike in his offensive value. He paired this scoring clinic with excellent weak-side defensive awareness, consistently rotating to blow up driving lanes. This was a complete, highly efficient two-way performance that dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.2
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 30.1m -15.2
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Frenetic energy yielded excellent hustle metrics, but his offensive limitations severely handicapped his overall effectiveness. He struggled to find any rhythm from beyond the arc, missing several wide-open catch-and-shoot opportunities that stalled possessions. His inability to punish defensive gaps ultimately resulted in a negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 18.2m -9.2
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Making the absolute most of a brief cameo, he generated an outsized defensive impact through sheer intensity. He blew up a key perimeter handoff and secured a tough contested board to swing momentum. Even without scoring, his high-motor defensive possessions left a distinct positive footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -71.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.3
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 2.9m -1.5
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 37.3m
27
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.1

Bullying his way to his spots, his highly efficient interior scoring drove a massive offensive box score footprint. The primary initiator role suited him perfectly as he consistently collapsed the defense to create quality looks. A relatively quiet defensive showing kept his total impact from reaching superstar tiers, but his offensive gravity was undeniable.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.4%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +20.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 37.3m -18.8
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Desmond Bane 34.9m
21
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.5

Perimeter struggles heavily weighed down his overall effectiveness, as a barrage of missed looks from deep stalled offensive momentum. His inability to contain dribble penetration compounded the issue, resulting in a damaging defensive grade. The scoring volume was entirely negated by poor shot selection and porous point-of-attack defense.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -2.0
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 34.9m -17.5
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
15
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

Despite extending his streak of highly efficient shooting nights, defensive lapses in the pick-and-roll proved costly. Opposing guards consistently exploited his drop coverage, leading to a negative defensive impact that erased his offensive contributions. He finished well around the rim but gave back too much ground in space.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.8%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.9
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 34.8m -17.5
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Suggs 34.2m
14
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.3

Relentless point-of-attack pressure and high-motor hustle plays generated excellent defensive metrics. Unfortunately, a disastrous shooting night featuring a barrage of forced, contested three-pointers completely tanked his net impact. His offensive decision-making actively harmed the team despite his elite effort levels on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.1%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 34.2m -17.3
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
11
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Elite defensive rotations anchored his value on that end of the floor, generating a massive positive defensive impact. However, clunky perimeter execution and a high volume of missed jumpers dragged his overall net rating into the red. He struggled to replicate the steady offensive rhythm he had established over the past week.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +8.0
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 31.0m -15.6
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
Noah Penda 19.9m
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.1

Capitalizing on a rare rotation opportunity, he delivered a massive surge in production compared to his recent baseline. Active hands in the passing lanes and timely weak-side rotations fueled a highly positive defensive rating. He played within himself offensively, taking only high-value shots to maximize his floor time.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 19.9m -10.0
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Cain 18.5m
12
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Continuing a trend of hyper-efficient execution, he found soft spots in the defense to convert high-percentage looks. His positional discipline on both ends of the floor minimized mistakes and provided a steadying presence for the bench group. Timely closeouts and solid rebounding fundamentals rounded out a highly effective shift.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.6
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 18.5m -9.3
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Jevon Carter 16.1m
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.4

Scraping for loose balls and applying steady ball pressure kept his hustle metrics firmly in the green during his brief stint. However, his overall impact hovered near neutral due to an inability to bend the defense or create distinct advantages. He was a stabilizing presence who neither hurt nor significantly elevated the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +20.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.6
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 16.1m -8.2
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Pure energy and physicality defined this performance, with a massive spike in hustle metrics driving his positive impact. He consistently fought for interior positioning and set bruising screens to free up ball handlers. While his defensive metrics were flat, his sheer motor provided a noticeable jolt to the frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 13.2m -6.7
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2