GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 28.7m
18
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.5

Settled for a disastrous diet of perimeter jumpers that constantly bailed out the opposing defense. Only his customary switchability and rim deterrence (+4.2 Def) prevented this highly inefficient offensive outing from tanking his overall score.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg -38.6
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.2
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 28.7m -17.0
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Tyler Herro 26.2m
18
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.7

Found his spots offensively but gave the points right back by getting targeted in pick-and-roll coverage. A lack of secondary effort plays (+0.6 Hustle) allowed opponents to extend possessions, neutralizing his scoring contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -30.9
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.0
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 26.2m -15.6
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Pelle Larsson 22.6m
7
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.7

Elite effort plays (+4.0 Hustle) and sticky perimeter defense kept him viable on one end of the floor. However, a stark regression in his finishing touch derailed several offensive sets, ultimately dragging his net impact below zero.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.8%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -39.8
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.1
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 22.6m -13.4
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Davion Mitchell 22.2m
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.8

Completely vanished as an offensive threat, allowing his defender to aggressively roam and double-team others. While his point-of-attack defense remained pesky (+3.6 Def), the severe lack of scoring punch created a massive structural disadvantage for his unit.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.6
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 22.2m -13.2
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Andrew Wiggins 19.6m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Locked down his primary assignment on the wing, generating a strong defensive rating (+4.5). He supplemented that stopping power with timely cuts and efficient shot selection, ensuring a steady positive flow during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -37.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.5
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 19.6m -11.6
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
21
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.1

Hemorrhaged value by hijacking the offense with forced, low-percentage looks early in the shot clock. Compounding the wasted possessions was a lethargic defensive effort (-1.8 Def) that repeatedly allowed straight-line drives to the rim, resulting in a catastrophic net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.8
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 29.7m -17.7
Impact -15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Kel'el Ware 22.3m
7
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Fell in love with the three-point shot instead of using his size inside, resulting in a slew of empty possessions. His elite rim protection (+6.7 Def) was undeniably impressive, but it couldn't fully offset the damage done by his poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.7
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 22.3m -13.2
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
8
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.4

Operated as a flawless connective piece, making the extra pass and knocking down open spot-up looks. His defensive positioning was superb (+6.3 Def), consistently blowing up opponent actions before they could materialize.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.3
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 22.3m -13.1
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.6

Struggled to find a rhythm in the mid-post, forcing tough turnaround jumpers rather than moving the ball. This offensive friction stalled out several possessions, outweighing a handful of scrappy plays in the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -29.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.7
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 19.5m -11.6
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Showed flashes of two-way competence but occasionally lost his man on backdoor cuts. The mix of timely perimeter makes and defensive lapses ultimately washed out to a near-neutral impact on the game.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 18.3m -10.9
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

Brought some defensive stability (+2.6 Def) during a brief rotation but was completely ignored by the opposing defense on the other end. The resulting spacing issues bogged down the half-court sets, leading to a slight negative swing.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense -0.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 5.7m -3.3
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.6

Maximized a tiny window of playing time by immediately attacking the basket and drawing contact. This hyper-efficient burst of scoring injected life into the second unit and spiked his impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +55.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense +5.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 2.9m -1.8
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S De'Aaron Fox 28.9m
14
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.9

Bogged down the half-court offense by forcing heavily contested mid-range pull-ups. Despite showing active hands in passing lanes, the wasted possessions from poor shot quality severely hampered the team's overall efficiency during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.9%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +34.4
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 28.9m -17.3
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
26
pts
15
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.2

Anchored the entire scheme with terrifying rim protection (+8.9 Def) that consistently deterred drivers. Even with a cold night firing from beyond the arc, his sheer interior dominance and high-volume finishing created a massive positive swing whenever he checked in.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 34.7%
Net Rtg +29.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +8.9
Raw total +30.8
Avg player in 26.3m -15.6
Impact +15.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 2
S Stephon Castle 22.9m
19
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.8

Relentless energy on 50/50 balls (+3.1 Hustle) set the tone for the second unit. He paired that grit with timely downhill attacks and smart shot selection, ensuring his minutes were highly profitable on both ends.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 22.9m -13.6
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

Perimeter spacing evaporated when he was on the floor due to a string of clanked spot-up opportunities. The massive dip in offensive production completely overshadowed a passable effort on the defensive glass, cratering his overall value.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg +48.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 21.9m -13.0
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Devin Vassell 21.0m
6
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.6

A sharp decline in scoring aggression left a void in the offensive flow, as he settled for contested perimeter looks. While his defensive rotations remained solid (+3.2 Def), the inability to convert on his usual volume ultimately dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +31.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.2
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 21.0m -12.5
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Dylan Harper 24.5m
21
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+11.7

Sliced through the primary line of defense with surgical precision, generating high-value looks at the rim. Maintaining his recent streak of elite efficiency, this offensive clinic dictated the tempo and resulted in a stellar net rating.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.6
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 24.5m -14.5
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
21
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

Capitalized on defensive mismatches by bullying his way to the rim and hitting timely momentum-shifting triples. His scoring surge easily outweighed a relatively quiet night in the hustle department, keeping the offensive rating afloat.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 23.5m -13.9
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.7

Punished late closeouts by burying a barrage of corner threes, doubling his usual offensive output. He compounded that spacing value with excellent weak-side defensive rotations (+6.2 Def) to cap off a highly effective two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.2
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 21.8m -12.9
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kornet 19.1m
5
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

Provided a sturdy backline presence (+4.7 Def) by altering shots and securing defensive rebounds in traffic. That defensive stability kept his overall impact in the green, completely masking his clunky finishing around the basket.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.4%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +31.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.7
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 19.1m -11.3
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.7

Spacing issues plagued his minutes as defenders completely ignored him on the perimeter. While he chipped in with some useful hustle plays, the offensive stagnation he caused by bricking open outside looks resulted in a deep negative swing.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.5
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 18.5m -10.9
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Sparked a rapid momentum shift during a tiny stint by applying intense on-ball pressure (+2.6 Def). His disruptive energy created immediate transition opportunities, maximizing his impact despite taking zero shots.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -55.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 2.9m -1.6
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Was entirely invisible during his short stint on the floor. Failed to register a single statistical contribution or hustle play, leaving his team essentially playing four-on-five.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -55.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.9m -1.7
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Offered a few physical screens but otherwise clogged the paint during his brief appearance. The lack of offensive threat allowed the defense to pack the lane, resulting in a slight negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -55.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 2.9m -1.6
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Barely saw the floor in a brief rotational cameo. Managed to execute one clean offensive set, but didn't log enough court time to meaningfully alter the game's trajectory.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -55.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense +0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 2.9m -1.7
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1