GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Norman Powell 34.0m
20
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.5

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
Offense +7.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.7
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 34.0m -17.1
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
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
+2.0

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
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +7.3
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 33.0m -16.5
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
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
+3.0

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
Offense +5.0
Hustle +6.0
Defense +8.2
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 32.4m -16.2
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
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
+4.7

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
Offense +5.3
Hustle +8.1
Defense +7.4
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 31.9m -16.1
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
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
-13.5

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
Offense -3.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 26.0m -13.1
Impact -13.5
How is this calculated?
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
-2.1

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
Offense +0.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.8
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 29.8m -15.1
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
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
+7.2

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
Offense +10.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 20.1m -10.1
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
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
-2.2

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
Offense +0.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.0
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 19.3m -9.7
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
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
+4.6

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
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 13.2m -6.6
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
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
-0.1

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
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.2m -0.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 37.8m
28
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.9

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
Offense +15.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 37.8m -19.0
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
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
-4.4

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
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.3
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 34.4m -17.4
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
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
+7.5

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
Offense +9.7
Hustle +6.7
Defense +7.5
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 32.4m -16.4
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
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
-5.1

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
Offense +3.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +2.7
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 29.4m -14.9
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
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
+0.7

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
Offense +5.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 21.7m -10.9
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
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
+1.4

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
Offense +6.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 23.3m -11.7
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
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
+6.8

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
Offense +7.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.3
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 18.6m -9.3
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
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
+3.3

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
Offense +4.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 15.2m -7.7
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
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
+3.8

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
Offense +3.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 14.6m -7.4
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
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
-2.8

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
Offense -0.8
Hustle +4.6
Defense -0.2
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 12.7m -6.4
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0