GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 42.0m
23
pts
16
reb
6
ast
Impact
+10.8

Dominating the paint with bruising screens and elite rim deterrence allowed him to control the game's tempo. He generated massive value by anchoring the drop coverage and forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. Offensively, his ability to draw fouls and facilitate from the elbows kept the half-court offense humming.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +28.2
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.0m
Offense +22.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.0
Raw total +31.9
Avg player in 42.0m -21.1
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 27
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 51.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tyler Herro 41.9m
30
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.2

A high-volume scoring barrage masked underlying inefficiencies that ultimately dragged his net impact into the red. He repeatedly stalled the offense by hunting contested pull-up jumpers early in the shot clock. Defensive breakdowns at the point of attack further eroded the value of his offensive output.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg +19.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.9m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 41.9m -20.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Pelle Larsson 36.4m
20
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.0

Superb finishing through contact and relentless off-ball movement drove a massive positive impact. Despite coming up empty from beyond the arc, he punished defensive miscommunications by constantly cutting backdoor for easy layups. His physical point-of-attack defense completely disrupted the opponent's primary actions.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.9%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +20.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +29.3
Avg player in 36.4m -18.3
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Andrew Wiggins 35.7m
14
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.6

An absolute masterclass in perimeter lockdown defense served as the engine for his stellar overall rating. He completely erased his primary matchup through sheer physicality and screen navigation, blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs. His timely weak-side contests and elite hustle plays far outweighed his moderate offensive volume.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +8.8
Defense +12.2
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 35.7m -17.8
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
S Davion Mitchell 30.0m
9
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.2

A catastrophic stint on the floor saw the team bleed points during his minutes, cratering his overall impact score. He struggled mightily to organize the offense, frequently picking up his dribble in bad spots and inviting trapping pressure. Opposing guards easily exploited his size disadvantage on switches, shooting right over the top of his contests.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 30.0m -14.9
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.7

Methodical footwork and high-IQ positional defense kept him in the green despite a clunky shooting night. He consistently made the right extra pass against rotating defenses, greasing the wheels for his teammates. His knack for jumping passing lanes generated crucial transition opportunities that swung momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 31.7m -15.8
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kel'el Ware 13.2m
5
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.3

Rushing his touches in the post led to a slew of clanked hook shots and completely derailed the second unit's rhythm. He lacked the necessary physicality to establish deep position, allowing smaller defenders to push him off his spots. His slow defensive processing speed resulted in several late contests at the rim.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -44.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 13.2m -6.6
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Barely moved the needle during a short rotational stint, blending into the background on both ends of the floor. He managed to space the floor adequately but lacked the defensive foot speed to contain dribble penetration.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -73.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 6.1m -3.0
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Dru Smith 3.1m
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

A brief, ineffective cameo was marred by poor spacing and an inability to stay in front of his man defensively. He was quickly targeted by the opposing offense, forcing the coaching staff to pull him almost immediately.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -95.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 3.1m -1.5
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 43.9m
23
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
+0.4

Relentless energy and elite hustle metrics barely kept his impact above water on a night where his jumper completely abandoned him. He repeatedly clanked off-the-dribble threes, bailing out the defense instead of utilizing his elite first step. However, his willingness to chase down loose balls salvaged several broken possessions.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.9m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +7.3
Defense +1.6
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 43.9m -22.0
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Paul George 34.8m
19
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

Despite solid defensive metrics and active hands, his overall impact flatlined due to erratic perimeter shooting. Settling for heavily contested looks from beyond the arc dragged down his efficiency. He failed to generate consistent rim pressure when the half-court offense stalled.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -32.3
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 34.8m -17.4
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Joel Embiid 34.1m
26
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.8

An overwhelming volume of missed field goals tanked his overall value, as he routinely forced contested mid-range jumpers against double teams. The offense stagnated heavily during his isolation possessions, leading to empty trips. His defensive anchoring couldn't offset the sheer number of wasted offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 10/25 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.8%
USG% 38.5%
Net Rtg -23.2
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.5
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 34.1m -17.1
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S VJ Edgecombe 29.9m
13
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.2

Smart shot selection and opportunistic cutting allowed him to be a highly effective secondary offensive weapon. He consistently attacked closeouts to keep the chain moving, avoiding the trap of over-dribbling. His disciplined perimeter defense helped neutralize the opponent's guard penetration.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -49.4
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.2
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 29.9m -14.9
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dominick Barlow 19.7m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

A severe lack of offensive aggression severely limited his utility, as he completely disappeared from the team's half-court sets. While he converted his rare touches, his inability to command defensive attention ruined the floor spacing. He was frequently targeted in pick-and-roll coverage during his stint.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg -27.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 19.7m -9.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.0

Drifting out of the offensive flow for long stretches rendered him a non-factor despite decent shooting splits. He passed up several open catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing the defense to sag off and clog the driving lanes. A few costly rotational lapses on the weak side further dampened his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 31.6m -15.8
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.1

Tunnel vision on drives and forced attempts in traffic severely damaged his offensive output. He routinely drove into crowds without a bailout plan, resulting in empty possessions that fueled transition opportunities the other way. His solid on-ball defensive pressure was completely negated by these offensive black holes.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.3
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 30.9m -15.6
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Adem Bona 14.4m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Struggled to make any tangible imprint on the game, looking lost navigating the opponent's screening actions. His failure to establish deep post position or roll with purpose made him an offensive liability. He was repeatedly late on help-side rotations during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 5.1%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.5
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 14.4m -7.2
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Saw only a fleeting moment of garbage time at the end of the contest. He had no opportunity to register any meaningful statistics or impact the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +300.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.6m -0.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0