Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
WAS lead MIA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MIA 2P — 3P —
WAS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 174 attempts

MIA MIA Shot-making Δ

Jaquez Jr. 10/14 +9.2
Adebayo Hard 7/14 +3.8
Larsson 8/14 +1.2
Fontecchio Hard 8/10 +11.9
Johnson Open 4/9 -3.0
Ware 5/7 +4.3
Jakučionis Hard 4/7 +3.6
Wiggins Hard 3/6 +1.8
Young Hard 0/1 -0.8

WAS WAS Shot-making Δ

Riley Hard 7/17 -0.9
Coulibaly 9/16 +4.2
Carrington Hard 11/15 +13.5
Reese 5/11 -1.2
Black Hard 3/11 -2.5
Watkins Hard 2/9 -3.8
Cooper Hard 5/7 +5.0
Gill 4/6 +1.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MIA
WAS
49/82 Field Goals 46/92
59.8% Field Goal % 50.0%
20/37 3-Pointers 14/31
54.1% 3-Point % 45.2%
22/26 Free Throws 11/14
84.6% Free Throw % 78.6%
74.9% True Shooting % 59.6%
52 Total Rebounds 35
9 Offensive 6
31 Defensive 21
37 Assists 26
1.95 Assist/TO Ratio 1.86
18 Turnovers 13
8 Steals 11
1 Blocks 2
20 Fouls 17
58 Points in Paint 50
24 Fast Break Pts 9
26 Points off TOs 18
19 Second Chance Pts 10
57 Bench Points 34
25 Largest Lead 2
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Bilal Coulibaly
25 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 22.2 MIN
+27.56
2
Simone Fontecchio
24 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 26.7 MIN
+24.27
3
Bub Carrington
30 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 33.9 MIN
+23.57
4
Bam Adebayo
20 PTS · 11 REB · 8 AST · 38.5 MIN
+20.84
5
Kasparas Jakučionis
16 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 30.9 MIN
+16.13
6
Jaime Jaquez Jr.
23 PTS · 4 REB · 8 AST · 36.1 MIN
+15.89
7
Kel'el Ware
12 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 21.6 MIN
+15.33
8
Sharife Cooper
11 PTS · 1 REB · 7 AST · 21.1 MIN
+14.78
9
Julian Reese
10 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 36.8 MIN
+14.52
10
Pelle Larsson
24 PTS · 0 REB · 6 AST · 26.6 MIN
+13.82
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 MIA shot clock Team TURNOVER 140–117
Q4 0:22 M. Gardner REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 140–117
Q4 0:24 MISS W. Riley 7' driving floating Shot 140–117
Q4 0:35 A. Gill REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 140–117
Q4 0:39 MISS J. Young 14' Jump Shot 140–117
Q4 0:51 A. Gill Free Throw 2 of 2 (10 PTS) 140–117
Q4 0:51 A. Gill Free Throw 1 of 2 (9 PTS) 140–116
Q4 0:51 P. Larsson shooting personal FOUL (5 PF) (Gill 2 FT) 140–115
Q4 1:07 K. Johnson running finger roll Layup (10 PTS) (J. Young 1 AST) 140–115
Q4 1:10 K. Johnson STEAL (2 STL) 138–115
Q4 1:10 W. Riley bad pass TURNOVER (3 TO) 138–115
Q4 1:21 P. Larsson Free Throw 2 of 2 (24 PTS) 138–115
Q4 1:21 P. Larsson Free Throw 1 of 2 (23 PTS) 137–115
Q4 1:21 S. Cooper shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Larsson 2 FT) 136–115
Q4 1:31 B. Adebayo REBOUND (Off:0 Def:11) 136–115

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Julian Reese 36.8m
10
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.7

Imposing his will on the interior, he altered several shots at the basket and fought hard for contested loose balls. The defensive grit was commendable, but a string of bobbled passes in the pick-and-roll prevented him from capitalizing on his offensive mismatches.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +6.7
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Anthony Gill 35.1m
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Operating primarily as a connective piece, he brought solid physical edge to the interior and contested well at the rim. However, his inability to space the floor allowed defenders to pack the paint, bogging down the offense and resulting in a negative overall swing.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bub Carrington 33.9m
30
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.7

Torching the nets from deep, his blistering perimeter efficiency punished defenders who dared to go under ball screens. While his scoring carried the offensive load, a lack of secondary playmaking and occasional defensive lapses kept his overall impact from reaching stratospheric levels.

Shooting
FG 11/15 (73.3%)
3PT 6/7 (85.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Scoring +27.5
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +8.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.3
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Leaky Black 31.7m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-15.9

An absolute crater on the offensive end, his insistence on firing contested perimeter jumpers completely stalled out the team's half-court execution. Even though he provided decent length in passing lanes, the sheer volume of empty possessions and long rebounds he generated fueled a massive opponent run.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Bilal Coulibaly 22.2m
25
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+21.1

Slashing to the rim with absolute impunity, he broke down the primary line of defense time and time again to generate high-value looks. His elite two-way impact was cemented by suffocating perimeter coverage that completely neutralized his primary matchup.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.7%
USG% 34.5%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Scoring +20.4
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

Smothering isolation defense and high-motor closeouts defined a gritty performance on the less glamorous end of the floor. Unfortunately, his offensive game was a black hole of forced drives and blocked shots, completely torpedoing his net value despite the defensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -37.3
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +5.4
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Will Riley 28.2m
16
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.5

Settling for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups derailed his offensive rhythm and led to a barrage of transition opportunities going the other way. The sheer volume of low-quality shot selection negated any marginal defensive contributions he made on the wing.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.1%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg -47.6
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
11
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.6

Pushing the pace with excellent vision, he consistently collapsed the defense to create wide-open looks for his shooters. His disciplined shot selection and ability to organize the half-court offense provided a massive stabilizing presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -35.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 38.5m
20
pts
11
reb
8
ast
Impact
+9.2

Anchoring the paint with elite rim deterrence drove a massive defensive rating that kept the opponent's frontcourt in check. His relentless activity on the glass and ability to generate second-chance opportunities through sheer hustle completely dictated the tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +23.4
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Scoring +15.1
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
16
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.2

Shattering his recent scoring averages, he found a rhythm from beyond the arc by punishing defenders who went under screens. His value was further amplified by aggressive point-of-attack defense that disrupted the opposing backcourt's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 83.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +13.3
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
24
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.8

An absolute flamethrower from the perimeter, his elite shot selection and quick trigger completely warped the opponent's defensive shell. This massive outlier offensive performance was the primary engine for his team's spacing, forcing hard closeouts that opened up driving lanes for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 6/8 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 110.3%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring +22.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +6.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Andrew Wiggins 22.9m
11
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.0

Despite efficient perimeter shooting, his overall impact slipped into the red due to costly live-ball turnovers that fueled transition opportunities. He provided solid on-ball resistance on the wing, but poor rotational positioning during a key second-half stretch dragged down his net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.1%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -7.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kel'el Ware 21.6m
12
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.9

Capitalizing on excellent pick-and-roll spacing, he punished defensive rotations with high-percentage finishes at the rim. This steady interior presence, combined with disciplined verticality on the other end, resulted in a highly efficient two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +0.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
23
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+3.9

Scoring with brilliant footwork in the mid-post masked a disastrous defensive stint where he repeatedly lost his man on backdoor cuts. The high-volume offensive output was entirely negated by bleeding points in transition and committing untimely fouls during crucial momentum swings.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 82.1%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +31.2
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Scoring +19.8
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
10
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Relentless energy on 50/50 balls and physical post defense highlighted a very active, blue-collar shift. Unfortunately, a series of sloppy offensive fouls and forced attempts in traffic severely dragged down his net impact despite the defensive grit.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +33.7
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
24
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.9

Aggressive downhill drives and timely weak-side cuts generated a massive offensive spike that kept the scoreboard ticking. However, his overall impact was muted by poor screen navigation on the perimeter, allowing opposing guards too much airspace to operate.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg +29.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +19.6
Creation +4.2
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.4

A disastrous three-minute cameo featured blown defensive assignments and immediate rotational mistakes that handed the opposition easy buckets. He was quickly pulled after failing to secure defensive rebounds, bleeding value at an alarming rate during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Logged purely developmental minutes at the end of the rotation. His slight negative grade stems entirely from being on the floor during a meaningless opponent scoring sequence.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Inserted solely to eat the final seconds of the clock. He recorded no meaningful statistics, with his minor negative rating reflecting the lineup's overall performance in garbage time.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.7

Barely saw the floor during a brief garbage-time appearance. A single forced shot attempt in traffic accounted for the entirety of his marginal negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0