GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 35.4m
26
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.7

Leveraged his physical advantages to bully smaller defenders in the mid-post, generating high-quality looks through sheer force. His active hands and disciplined closeouts on the perimeter ensured his offensive production translated directly to winning margins.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.3
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 35.4m -15.5
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Derrick White 34.9m
10
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.2

Provided steady point-of-attack defense and timely floor-spacing, but his overall impact was muted by likely ball-security issues or rotational miscommunications. He played a stabilizing role, yet couldn't generate the necessary separation to push his unit into dominant territory.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg +27.4
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.4
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 34.9m -15.3
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jayson Tatum 34.0m
23
pts
13
reb
7
ast
Impact
+7.6

Dominated the margins of the game through exceptional weak-side rim protection and physical rebounding in traffic. Even when his perimeter jumper wasn't falling at an elite clip, his sheer gravity and defensive versatility anchored the lineup's success.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +9.6
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 34.0m -14.9
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 5
S Neemias Queta 33.9m
18
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.7

Utterly dismantled the opposing frontcourt with ruthless efficiency as a roll man. His ability to seal deep in the paint and finish through contact created an unstoppable interior force that completely warped the defensive game plan.

Shooting
FG 9/10 (90.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +44.8
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +26.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.6
Raw total +30.6
Avg player in 33.9m -14.9
Impact +15.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S Sam Hauser 26.5m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.6

A failure to punish closeouts and connect on his usual diet of catch-and-shoot looks severely hampered the spacing. Opponents aggressively chased him off the line, forcing him into uncomfortable secondary actions that yielded empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.1
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 26.5m -11.7
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
17
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.9

Pushed the pace relentlessly, exploiting cross-matches in semi-transition to generate highly efficient offense. His surprising defensive tenacity at the point of attack completely disrupted the opposing backcourt's initiation.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.7
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 30.2m -13.1
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

Cold shooting from beyond the arc allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates. His inability to make the defense pay for aggressive help principles stalled out the second unit's offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.3
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 16.8m -7.4
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 13.1m
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Brought essential energy to the wing with disruptive length that blew up multiple dribble hand-offs. He embraced a low-usage role, focusing entirely on connecting plays and maintaining defensive integrity.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.3
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 13.1m -5.6
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

Bleeding points in pick-and-roll coverage completely overshadowed his modest offensive contributions. Opposing guards repeatedly put him in the blender, exploiting his heavy feet to generate uncontested looks at the rim.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -43.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 13.0m -5.7
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Clocked in strictly to finish out the final moments of the contest. Did not have the opportunity to impact the game's flow or tactical execution.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.1m -0.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Stepped onto the floor only as a human victory cigar. The extremely limited run yielded zero actionable scouting data.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.1m -0.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
S RJ Barrett 35.4m
15
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.7

A brutal combination of forced shots and disrupted offensive flow resulted in a massive negative impact score. His insistence on attacking set defenses led to low-quality attempts at the rim, stalling out possessions and feeding directly into opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.9%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 35.4m -15.5
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Brandon Ingram 33.5m
15
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.7

Despite generating solid baseline offense, his overall value plummeted due to hidden defensive lapses and likely transition bleed. He failed to dictate the tempo in the half-court, allowing his matchup to capitalize on slow closeouts and poor off-ball awareness.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 33.5m -14.7
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Scottie Barnes 32.1m
10
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.8

Elite defensive engagement and high-motor hustle plays kept him relevant, but a severe drop in scoring efficiency tanked his overall impact. Struggling to find his rhythm from the perimeter, his inability to convert high-leverage offensive possessions negated his stellar work shutting down assignments.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.6
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 32.1m -14.0
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Ja'Kobe Walter 32.0m
16
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.3

An absolute spark plug performance defined by elite shot selection and suffocating perimeter pressure. He consistently capitalized on defensive breakdowns to knock down open looks, while his relentless point-of-attack defense completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/3 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.5%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.2
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 32.0m -14.1
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jakob Poeltl 20.1m
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Flawless finishing around the rim wasn't enough to mask a highly exploitable interior defensive showing. Opponents consistently targeted him in drop coverage, turning his minutes into a layup line that completely erased the value of his offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -35.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense -2.1
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 20.1m -8.9
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
12
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.5

Maintained his streak of highly efficient interior play by strictly taking what the defense gave him. His physical screening and timely cuts created high-value opportunities, while his active hands in the passing lanes provided a steady stream of extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 25.9m -11.3
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Jamal Shead 25.7m
7
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.2

Ineffective orchestration and erratic decision-making cratered his value during his time on the floor. He repeatedly settled for contested jumpers early in the shot clock, which compounded his struggles to stay in front of quicker guards on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.8
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 25.7m -11.2
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.1

Played perfectly within his role, stretching the floor effectively to open up driving lanes for the primary creators. His timely spacing and disciplined defensive positioning ensured the second unit maintained positive momentum without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 24.1m -10.5
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Failed to find the flow of the game during a brief rotation stint, looking a step slow on offensive rotations. A lack of assertiveness allowed the defense to ignore him, shrinking the floor and stalling out the unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 5.6m -2.4
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Maximized a brief cameo by immediately executing on a quick-hitting offensive set. Staying ready on the bench translated into instant execution during his limited seconds on the hardwood.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 1.1m -0.5
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Logged purely ceremonial minutes at the end of the rotation. Did not have enough floor time to register any meaningful defensive rotations or offensive actions.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.1m -0.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Inserted strictly for mop-up duty as the clock expired. The sample size was too small to evaluate any tactical execution or positioning.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.1m -0.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Burned a minute of game clock in a completely neutral showing. Was essentially a placeholder on the floor during the final sequence.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.1m -0.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Saw the floor only to close out the final possession. Offered no measurable data points in either half-court execution or transition.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.1m -0.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0