GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
13
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.8

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc heavily penalized his overall impact, as deep misses frequently triggered long rebounds and fast breaks for the opponent. While he managed to generate some raw box-score value, the hidden costs of defensive breakdowns and wasted offensive trips cratered his net score. He struggled to find the balance between aggressive creation and necessary game management.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.7
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 34.8m -17.7
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Derrick White 32.6m
6
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-17.1

An uncharacteristically frigid shooting night completely derailed his offensive value, with multiple forced jumpers short-circuiting the team's half-court flow. Even his usually reliable point-of-attack defense couldn't salvage a disastrous overall impact. The sheer volume of empty offensive possessions ultimately overwhelmed his subtle hustle contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.6%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 32.6m -16.5
Impact -17.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylen Brown 31.6m
26
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.0

Aggressive downhill drives forced the defense to collapse, though a few forced attempts in traffic slightly capped his overall ceiling. He compensated for any offensive inefficiency with fantastic hustle, consistently winning 50/50 balls and extending possessions. That relentless physical edge ensured he remained a strong positive force throughout his shift.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +5.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 31.6m -16.1
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Neemias Queta 29.2m
16
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.9

Utter dominance in the painted area drove a massive impact score, as he bullied opposing bigs for deep post position all night. He paired this interior scoring gravity with disciplined drop coverage that deterred guards from challenging the rim. Continuing his streak of hyper-efficient shooting, he punished every mismatch the defense gave him.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +21.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 29.2m -14.9
Impact +13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jordan Walsh 24.1m
9
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

High-motor sequences on the defensive end allowed him to break out of a recent scoring rut by generating easy transition looks. He thrived in a complementary role, using his length to disrupt passing lanes and crash the glass effectively. It was a perfectly executed glue-guy performance that stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +14.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 24.1m -12.2
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
23
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.2

Sizzling perimeter shot-making inflated his raw production, but defensive lapses and costly live-ball turnovers severely undercut his actual net value. He was a dynamic weapon when operating in space, yet gave a massive portion of that value right back by getting lost on back-door cuts. The scoring volume was flashy, but the underlying mistakes kept his true impact marginal.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 33.0m -16.8
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
Luka Garza 16.8m
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.5

Capitalizing on brief rotational minutes, he used hard screens and relentless offensive rebounding to carve out a positive margin. He maintained his recent streak of high-efficiency finishing by strictly taking what the defense yielded around the basket. It was a highly focused, mistake-free stint that perfectly executed the coach's game plan.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +3.3
Defense +0.6
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 16.8m -8.6
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Sam Hauser 14.2m
0
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.2

Failing to convert on his trademark catch-and-shoot looks rendered him an offensive liability in this matchup. Because his gravity as a floor-spacer vanished, the defense sagged off him to clog the driving lanes for others. Without his shot falling, his minimal defensive and hustle contributions weren't enough to prevent a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 14.2m -7.3
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.5

Flawless shot selection maximized his limited minutes, as he quickly punished defensive rotations without forcing the issue. He supplemented his perfect shooting night with active off-ball movement and solid rotational rebounding. This hyper-efficient cameo provided a much-needed jolt of stability to the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -39.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.2
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 11.2m -5.7
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Floating on the perimeter without demanding the ball resulted in a completely invisible offensive shift. While he chipped in slightly with a few contested rebounds, his inability to pressure the defense or generate any spacing dragged his overall score into the negative. He simply didn't leave a tangible footprint on the game during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -27.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 7.2m -3.7
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Active hands and disciplined closeouts allowed him to survive a brief, scoreless stint with a slightly positive net rating. He avoided making any catastrophic mistakes, focusing entirely on maintaining the defensive shell and fighting through screens. It was a purely developmental shift where his defensive fundamentals outshined his offensive invisibility.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +133.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.1
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 5.2m -2.6
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Noah Clowney 37.0m
19
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.0

A massive defensive presence defined this breakout performance, anchoring the paint and generating significant stops to swing the momentum. He broke out of a recent shooting slump by finding high-percentage looks around the rim rather than forcing perimeter shots. This two-way surge provided a crucial spark that completely shifted the frontcourt dynamic.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +3.9
Defense +8.9
Raw total +24.8
Avg player in 37.0m -18.8
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
33
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.8

Elite shot-making fueled a massive offensive rating, as he consistently punished closeouts with high-release jumpers. However, his overall impact was somewhat muted compared to his raw production, suggesting hidden costs like missed defensive rotations or live-ball turnovers. The sheer volume of high-quality looks he converted ultimately kept his team afloat.

Shooting
FG 13/21 (61.9%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +22.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 37.0m -18.7
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nic Claxton 34.7m
18
pts
11
reb
12
ast
Impact
+8.8

Operating as an unexpected offensive hub, his brilliant interior passing shredded the opposing defensive shell and created countless easy looks for cutters. He paired this playmaking with elite rim protection to completely dictate the terms of engagement in the half-court. Converting efficiently on his own attempts further solidified a dominant two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +25.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.6
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 34.7m -17.6
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Terance Mann 32.2m
6
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.2

Relentless energy on the margins drove his value, highlighted by a massive hustle metric that kept multiple possessions alive. Despite struggling to find an offensive rhythm, his willingness to dive for loose balls and fight through screens provided essential glue-guy contributions. Those hidden plays offset the damage from his empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +9.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 32.2m -16.5
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Egor Dëmin 29.5m
12
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.4

Calculated shot selection allowed him to maximize his offensive footprint without demanding heavy usage or forcing bad looks. He supplemented his efficient scoring with disciplined defensive rotations that stymied opposing drives. It was a textbook example of playing within the flow of the offense while maintaining high two-way engagement.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.3
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 29.5m -15.0
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Drake Powell 21.3m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.1

Smothering perimeter defense was the catalyst for his strong positive impact, consistently blowing up dribble hand-offs and disrupting the opponent's flow. He didn't force the issue offensively, instead taking only the high-value shots that the defense conceded. That low-mistake, high-intensity approach made him a massive plus in his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.2
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 21.3m -10.9
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.1

Defensive lapses and a lack of secondary hustle plays dragged his overall net impact into the red despite a highly efficient scoring night. He capitalized on spot-up opportunities perfectly, but gave that value right back by missing crucial box-outs and defensive assignments. The raw scoring punch masked a performance that ultimately bled points on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 19.3m -9.8
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.3

A complete lack of rhythm resulted in forced, low-quality perimeter shots that fueled opponent transition opportunities. Compounding the offensive struggles was a highly detrimental defensive showing where he repeatedly lost his man off the ball. Zero hustle contributions meant there was absolutely nothing to cushion the blow of his missed assignments.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -36.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense -5.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -3.0
Raw total -8.3
Avg player in 15.7m -8.0
Impact -16.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Foul trouble and mistimed defensive jumps severely limited his ability to stay on the floor and build any rhythm. While he did generate some positive friction with hard screens and rim contests, the hidden costs of empty possessions dragged his overall score down. He simply couldn't string together enough clean sequences to be a net positive.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.2%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 13.3m -6.7
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3