Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIA lead TOR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
TOR 2P — 3P —
MIA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 171 attempts

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Ingram Hard 9/19 +5.6
Barnes 8/16 +0.2
Quickley Hard 6/12 +2.1
Dick Hard 4/9 +0.4
Mamukelashvili 4/9 -1.0
Shead Hard 3/9 -1.6
Poeltl Open 4/6 +0.7
Agbaji Hard 2/4 +1.1
Murray-Boyles Open 2/2 +1.4
Walter Hard 0/2 -2.2

MIA MIA Shot-making Δ

Powell 5/15 -4.3
Adebayo 7/13 +0.8
Wiggins 4/12 -2.8
Mitchell 5/11 -0.7
Jaquez Jr. 5/9 +1.2
Smith 4/8 +0.6
Ware 3/7 -2.0
Fontecchio Hard 1/5 -2.4
Johnson 1/3 -1.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
TOR
MIA
42/88 Field Goals 35/83
47.7% Field Goal % 42.2%
16/40 3-Pointers 9/31
40.0% 3-Point % 29.0%
6/9 Free Throws 17/23
66.7% Free Throw % 73.9%
57.6% True Shooting % 51.5%
50 Total Rebounds 54
11 Offensive 11
34 Defensive 34
33 Assists 20
1.57 Assist/TO Ratio 1.05
19 Turnovers 18
9 Steals 12
7 Blocks 7
20 Fouls 14
44 Points in Paint 42
9 Fast Break Pts 19
22 Points off TOs 29
16 Second Chance Pts 14
33 Bench Points 31
11 Largest Lead 11
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Brandon Ingram
28 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 37.8 MIN
+16.33
2
Scottie Barnes
17 PTS · 10 REB · 6 AST · 32.4 MIN
+15.06
3
Dru Smith
11 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 20.1 MIN
+13.7
4
Bam Adebayo
20 PTS · 10 REB · 2 AST · 33.0 MIN
+13.02
5
Sandro Mamukelashvili
11 PTS · 7 REB · 0 AST · 18.5 MIN
+12.74
6
Davion Mitchell
12 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 31.9 MIN
+10.24
7
Andrew Wiggins
10 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 32.4 MIN
+10.09
8
Keshad Johnson
4 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 13.2 MIN
+9.47
9
Immanuel Quickley
15 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 34.4 MIN
+7.87
10
Jamal Shead
8 PTS · 3 REB · 10 AST · 23.3 MIN
+7.79
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:06 S. Barnes REBOUND (Off:4 Def:6) 106–96
Q4 0:09 MISS N. Powell 27' 3PT 106–96
Q4 0:17 J. Poeltl Layup (8 PTS) (S. Barnes 6 AST) 106–96
Q4 0:26 B. Ingram REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 104–96
Q4 0:29 MISS N. Powell floating Shot 104–96
Q4 0:30 N. Powell REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 104–96
Q4 0:33 MISS N. Powell 3PT 104–96
Q4 0:35 B. Adebayo REBOUND (Off:0 Def:10) 104–96
Q4 0:35 MISS S. Barnes Free Throw 1 of 1 104–96
Q4 0:35 D. Mitchell shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Barnes 1 FT) 104–96
Q4 0:35 S. Barnes putback Layup (17 PTS) 104–96
Q4 0:35 S. Barnes REBOUND (Off:4 Def:5) 102–96
Q4 0:38 MISS J. Shead 27' pullup 3PT 102–96
Q4 1:01 N. Powell bad pass out-of-bounds TURNOVER (3 TO) 102–96
Q4 1:09 J. Shead 6' driving floating Jump Shot (8 PTS) 102–96

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

Why this game is worth arguing about

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Norman Powell 34.0m
20
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.8

Empty volume scoring masked a highly detrimental shot selection that consistently bailed out the opposing defense. He routinely forced contested mid-range jumpers early in the clock and offered zero resistance fighting through screens at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Scoring +11.6
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Bam Adebayo 33.0m
20
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.5

Seamlessly switching onto guards late in the shot clock allowed him to anchor the defensive shell. A handful of forced passes into traffic slightly dampened his score, but his physical screen-setting consistently freed up the perimeter scorers.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Andrew Wiggins 32.4m
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.2

Locking down the opposing primary creator in isolation salvaged what was otherwise a rough shooting night. His relentless effort crashing from the corners created vital second-chance opportunities that kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 1
S Davion Mitchell 31.9m
12
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.4

Suffocating full-court ball pressure completely changed the complexion of the game during his shifts. His elite ability to navigate screens without requiring help kept the defensive shell intact and drove a highly positive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
3
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.8

Bricking multiple wide-open looks derailed the team's offensive momentum and allowed the defense to comfortably pack the paint. His sluggish lateral movement on perimeter switches resulted in a parade of blow-by drives that completely tanked his net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Scoring -0.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.2

Frequently driving into crowded paint areas resulted in stalled possessions and costly turnovers. While his off-ball defensive instincts remained sharp, his inability to finish through contact ultimately dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +4.1
Defense +7.1
Turnovers -13.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 5
Dru Smith 20.1m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.9

Capitalizing on defensive miscommunications allowed him to generate easy points via backdoor cuts. His sudden and unexpected scoring burst was perfectly complemented by disciplined closeouts that consistently ran shooters off their spots.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Kel'el Ware 19.3m
6
pts
13
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Dominating the defensive glass wasn't enough to offset the value he lost by fumbling multiple pick-and-roll feeds. Opponents successfully targeted his high center of gravity, repeatedly dislodging him from his rim-protection duties to secure inside position.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +9.7
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

High-IQ positional defense and timely weak-side help defined his highly effective stint. Rather than forcing his own offense, he served as a vital connective piece who kept the ball moving and the defensive rotations crisp.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Checked in strictly for a brief end-of-quarter defensive possession. He did not log enough floor time to register any meaningful statistical impact on the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.2m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense -1.3
Turnovers -3.2
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 37.8m
28
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.4

An offensive explosion from deep masked significant defensive lapses in rotation. His perimeter shot-making carried the half-court offense, but giving up straight-line drives limited his overall net positive to just above neutral.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Scoring +21.2
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +7.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
15
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.4

Poor shot selection early in the clock stalled the offensive flow, negating his raw scoring bump. He forced too many contested pull-ups from deep and compounded the damage with late defensive gambles that surrendered easy transition lanes.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Scottie Barnes 32.4m
17
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+14.4

Elite defensive versatility drove his high impact rating, as he consistently blew up pick-and-rolls at the point of attack. He generated massive value through secondary hustle plays and deflections, keeping possessions alive even when his perimeter shot wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +20.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Scoring +10.9
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +12.7
Defense +2.8
Turnovers -9.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 18.8%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 4
S Jakob Poeltl 29.4m
8
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.9

Opposing guards relentlessly targeted him in drop coverage, exploiting his lack of foot speed on the perimeter. Despite logging solid rim-protection metrics, his inability to finish through contact in the paint ultimately cratered his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Ochai Agbaji 21.7m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.5

Flawless weak-side cutting allowed him to maximize his limited offensive touches. He carved out a slight positive impact by executing disciplined closeouts that consistently chased shooters off the three-point line.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 23.3m
8
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
-4.2

Masterful tempo dictation defined his night, constantly probing the paint to spray out to open shooters. A cluster of careless live-ball turnovers in the third quarter kept his impact score from soaring higher, though his point-of-attack pressure remained relentless.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +55.1
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.7

Operating as a trailing big, he effectively stretched the floor and pulled the opposing rim protector out of the paint. His surprisingly stout post defense against heavier matchups fueled a highly efficient two-way stint that drove his strong positive rating.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +52.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +6.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +7.0
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Gradey Dick 15.2m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Tireless perimeter relocation helped him break out of his shooting slump by finding clean catch-and-shoot windows. He added hidden defensive value to his scoring punch by using active hands to disrupt multiple dribble handoffs.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.8

Pristine weak-side rotations allowed him to anchor the second-unit defense effectively. Even with his scoring output plummeting, his willingness to set bruising screens and contest at the rim generated steady positive value.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.3

Failing to create separation on his drives caused him to completely vanish from the offensive game plan. While he chased loose balls with high energy, his inability to bend the defense left the half-court offense stagnant during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg +25.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0