GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 37.8m
28
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.7

Dominated the interior through sheer physicality, anchoring the defense while serving as an offensive hub at the elbows. His ability to seamlessly switch onto guards late in the shot clock suffocated opponent possessions. Bouncing back from a recent slump, his aggressive rim-running and elite positional awareness drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +20.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.3
Raw total +31.0
Avg player in 37.8m -20.3
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Pelle Larsson 33.3m
11
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.7

Off-the-charts hustle metrics were completely overshadowed by disjointed offensive execution and forced drives into traffic. His relentless energy on loose balls couldn't compensate for the spacing issues caused by his perimeter hesitation. The sheer volume of empty offensive trips dragged his overall rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.7%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -19.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +7.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 33.3m -17.9
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Tyler Herro 32.7m
21
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.5

High-volume gunning actively harmed the offensive flow as he settled for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups early in the shot clock. This poor shot selection fueled long rebounds and easy transition opportunities for the opposition. The scoring totals masked a highly inefficient performance that consistently put the transition defense in a bind.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +6.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.3
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 32.7m -17.6
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Davion Mitchell 32.4m
16
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.8

Relentless ball pressure at the point of attack disrupted the opponent's offensive timing from the opening tip. He capitalized on the resulting chaos by converting transition layups and knocking down open rhythm jumpers. Marrying elite perimeter harassment with highly efficient offensive decision-making resulted in a stellar two-way rating.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -17.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 32.4m -17.4
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.5

A slight uptick in scoring aggression was negated by slow lateral movement on the defensive perimeter. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in isolation, blowing past him to collapse the paint. This defensive vulnerability turned his minutes into a net negative despite finding the bottom of the net more often than usual.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.9
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 19.4m -10.4
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
20
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.3

Explosive downhill scoring was entirely offset by a tendency to fall asleep as an off-ball defender. While he successfully pressured the rim on offense, he routinely lost his man on back-door cuts, giving up easy layups. This one-way production resulted in a perfectly mediocre net impact.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.1
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 32.5m -17.5
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Kel'el Ware 20.6m
14
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

Capitalized brilliantly on drop coverages by making decisive rolls to the rim and finishing through contact. His disciplined verticality in the paint deterred slashers without resulting in foul trouble. Operating with high efficiency in his designated role allowed him to post a strong positive footprint.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +21.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 20.6m -11.1
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.7

Steady, low-mistake playmaking stabilized the second unit during a crucial mid-game stretch. He kept the ball moving and made timely rotations on defense, avoiding the costly errors that usually plague young guards. This meat-and-potatoes approach yielded a slightly positive, reliable impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 15.7m -8.5
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Dru Smith 15.6m
2
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.9

Struggled to initiate the offense under pressure, leading to stagnant possessions and late-clock desperation heaves. Despite showing flashes of energy in the passing lanes, his inability to contain dribble penetration compromised the defensive shell. The lack of offensive creation and point-of-attack resistance kept him firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.1
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 15.6m -8.4
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Austin Reaves 40.0m
18
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-14.2

Forced isolation attempts and erratic shot selection cratered his overall value despite decent raw production. Opponents consistently targeted him on switches, forcing defensive rotations that compromised the backline. The combination of empty offensive possessions and defensive bleeding drove a severely negative rating.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.0m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.3
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 40.0m -21.5
Impact -14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 59.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S LeBron James 37.9m
19
pts
15
reb
10
ast
Impact
+1.6

A massive statistical footprint was heavily diluted by costly live-ball turnovers and defensive lapses in transition. While his downhill playmaking generated high-value looks, giving the ball away repeatedly kept his overall net impact surprisingly grounded. He dominated the physical matchups in the half-court but gave too much back on the break.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.9%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.7
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 37.9m -20.4
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Luka Dončić 37.6m
60
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+40.9

An absolute masterclass in offensive orchestration was paired with surprisingly elite positional defense to generate a monstrous impact score. He systematically dismantled drop coverages with lethal step-backs while actively disrupting passing lanes on the other end. This rare combination of historic scoring volume and high-level defensive engagement broke the scale.

Shooting
FG 18/30 (60.0%)
3PT 9/17 (52.9%)
FT 15/19 (78.9%)
Advanced
TS% 78.2%
USG% 40.8%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +44.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +13.2
Raw total +61.0
Avg player in 37.6m -20.1
Impact +40.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 2
S Deandre Ayton 29.2m
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.3

Passivity in the pick-and-roll completely neutralized his usual interior dominance. Failing to establish deep post position led to a sharp drop in offensive volume, while sluggish pick-and-roll coverages bled points on the other end. This lack of two-way aggression resulted in a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.6
Defense -1.1
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 29.2m -15.6
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Marcus Smart 27.5m
13
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.4

Elite point-of-attack defense and relentless hustle plays nearly salvaged an otherwise broken offensive outing. His inability to convert open perimeter looks allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. The defensive intensity disrupted opponent sets, but the offensive spacing issues ultimately left him slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +24.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 27.5m -14.7
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Jaxson Hayes 18.8m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.5

Anchored the second unit with disciplined rim protection and timely weak-side rotations. Even with his offensive touches drastically reduced, his vertical spacing and defensive presence forced opponents into low-percentage floaters. Thriving in a simplified role allowed him to post a sturdy positive rating.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.6
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 18.8m -10.2
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Jake LaRavia 18.1m
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

Efficient spot-up shooting was entirely undone by persistent struggles navigating off-ball screens. Opposing wings routinely lost him on back-cuts, forcing emergency rotations that compromised the entire defensive shell. Giving back points so easily on the defensive end erased any value generated by his perimeter touch.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.6
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 18.1m -9.8
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Struggled to find an offensive rhythm as the ball consistently stuck in his hands during half-court sets. Although he provided a few timely hustle plays on the glass, his inability to stretch the floor or attack closeouts bogged down the spacing. The lack of decisive action on the perimeter kept his impact firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 17.6m -9.4
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kennard 13.4m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Complete offensive invisibility tanked his value during a brief rotation stint. By failing to launch from deep, he allowed the defense to completely ignore him and pack the paint against drivers. His gravity was non-existent, rendering his minutes highly detrimental to the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.9%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 13.4m -7.2
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0