GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Efficient perimeter shooting was completely overshadowed by defensive vulnerabilities that bled points on the other end. Opposing guards relentlessly hunted him in switch actions, easily shooting over his contests. This constant defensive targeting negated his offensive spacing and dragged his overall rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 34.4m -19.9
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jaylen Brown 34.2m
33
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.0

A staggering 20 missed field goals heavily diluted the value of his high-volume scoring output. Fortunately, elite perimeter containment (+9.8) and relentless rebounding salvaged his overall impact score. His insistence on forcing contested mid-range pull-ups defined a highly polarizing, two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 12/32 (37.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +9.8
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 34.2m -19.8
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 5
S Derrick White 31.2m
27
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.7

Flawless two-way execution drove a massive positive impact, anchored by lethal perimeter marksmanship and suffocating point-of-attack defense (+7.4). He consistently blew up opponent dribble hand-offs, turning defensive stops into immediate transition triples. His pristine shot selection and elite decision-making dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +22.5
Hustle +4.9
Defense +7.4
Raw total +34.8
Avg player in 31.2m -18.1
Impact +16.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jordan Walsh 28.5m
7
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.3

Despite excellent defensive metrics (+6.0) and active hands, hidden mistakes like ill-advised fouls or spacing errors kept his score slightly in the red. He passed up several open looks, which allowed the defense to pack the paint against the primary scorers. His ability to navigate screens was a bright spot in an otherwise passive offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.0
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 28.5m -16.5
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luka Garza 11.3m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

A complete lack of offensive production and slow defensive rotations resulted in a severely negative impact rating. Opposing bigs easily exploited his lack of foot speed in pick-and-roll coverage, generating wide-open looks. His inability to establish deep post position rendered his minutes entirely ineffective.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 11.3m -6.6
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Sizzling offensive efficiency was entirely undone by glaring defensive lapses (-3.0) that handed points right back to the opposition. He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts and struggled to navigate off-ball screens. The scoring punch simply could not mask how often he was exploited on the defensive perimeter.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense -3.0
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 30.3m -17.5
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Minott 19.2m
9
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.8

Relentless energy and elite hustle metrics (+5.7) transformed him into a massive positive during his time on the floor. He generated extra possessions by crashing the offensive glass and diving for loose balls. Hitting timely perimeter shots kept the defense honest, perfectly complementing his high-motor defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +5.7
Defense +3.6
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 19.2m -11.1
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Sam Hauser 17.2m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

Poor defensive positioning (-0.7) and a lack of overall motor severely punished his team during his rotational minutes. Without a high volume of three-pointers falling to offset his physical limitations, he became a glaring liability on the floor. Opponents successfully ran him off the line and attacked his closeouts with ease.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.7
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 17.2m -9.9
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Being a complete non-factor on the offensive end allowed the defense to play five-on-four, dragging his overall impact into the red. While he provided solid rim deterrence (+4.0) and active hustle, his inability to command any defensive attention clogged the spacing. His stint was defined by offensive stagnation that stalled the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 2.8%
Net Rtg -26.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 15.4m -8.9
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.5

A barrage of forced, low-percentage jumpers completely derailed his offensive rhythm and hurt the team's overall efficiency. Missing six shots in just under 12 minutes killed critical possessions and fueled opponent fast breaks. His inability to break down the primary defender led to stagnant, late-clock bail-out attempts.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.7%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg +38.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 11.7m -6.8
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
1
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Failing to register a single field goal while looking hesitant within the offensive flow resulted in a quick negative impact. He struggled to find the pace of the game, often holding the ball too long and disrupting the team's spacing. A few decent defensive closeouts couldn't salvage a highly unproductive offensive shift.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 6.5m -3.7
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 36.4m
42
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.5

Absolute offensive mastery drove a massive positive impact, as he relentlessly punished drop coverage in the pick-and-roll. Despite a high volume of missed field goals, his ability to generate high-quality looks kept the offense humming. He dictated the entire flow of the game, forcing the defense into impossible rotational choices.

Shooting
FG 12/26 (46.2%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 14/16 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 38.9%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +27.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.6
Raw total +34.5
Avg player in 36.4m -21.0
Impact +13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jalen Duren 30.3m
12
pts
16
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Inefficient interior finishing cratered his overall value, as missing six shots around the basket gave away crucial possessions. While he dominated the glass, his inability to convert high-percentage looks allowed the defense to sag off him. This lack of offensive gravity clogged the paint and stalled the team's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.5%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 30.3m -17.5
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Duncan Robinson 29.5m
11
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.3

Surprisingly robust defensive rotations (+7.0) and constant off-ball movement fueled a positive overall rating. Even though several of his perimeter attempts rimmed out, the sheer threat of his shooting warped the opposing defense. His willingness to fight over screens defined a surprisingly gritty two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +5.2
Defense +7.0
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 29.5m -17.1
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tobias Harris 27.0m
12
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.3

A stark contrast between raw production and actual value, as a barrage of missed perimeter jumpers dragged his overall impact into the red. Settling for heavily contested looks from deep negated his otherwise solid defensive positioning. His low-motor stretches off the ball allowed opponents to dictate the tempo during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.6
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 27.0m -15.5
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Ausar Thompson 25.9m
8
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Elite defensive metrics (+6.4) and relentless hustle plays kept his overall impact in the green despite severe offensive struggles. Missing six shots inside the arc severely capped his ceiling on that end of the floor. His ability to disrupt passing lanes defined his stint, masking the clunky finishing around the rim.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +4.9
Defense +6.4
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 25.9m -14.9
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Caris LeVert 24.0m
10
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.0

Defensive liabilities and stalled offensive sets pushed his overall impact into negative territory. He frequently pounded the ball late into the shot clock, leading to forced attempts and broken possessions. Opposing wings consistently targeted him in isolation, exposing his lack of lateral containment.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.8
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 24.0m -13.9
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Physical screen-setting and stout interior defense (+4.7) anchored his positive contribution in limited minutes. He successfully walled off the paint against driving guards, forcing tough floaters instead of layups. A few rushed attempts around the rim slightly dampened an otherwise rock-solid rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.7
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 20.1m -11.6
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jaden Ivey 14.8m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

A disastrous shot selection profile tanked his value, highlighted by five empty trips from beyond the arc. Forcing contested jumpers early in the clock repeatedly handed transition opportunities right back to the opponent. While he showed flashes of defensive resistance, the offensive inefficiency was too steep to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.9%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 14.8m -8.5
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.5

High-energy defensive pressure (+5.0) at the point of attack made him a highly effective spark plug off the bench. He completely disrupted the opponent's secondary unit by blowing up dribble hand-offs. Avoiding costly mistakes allowed his raw athleticism to shine through in a brief but impactful run.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -34.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.0
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 14.3m -8.3
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

Empty offensive possessions dragged down his overall score, as he failed to capitalize on his few open looks. Though he provided decent weak-side help defense, his inability to stretch the floor cramped the spacing for the second unit. His minutes were defined by a lack of offensive gravity that stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 9.7m -5.6
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Complete invisibility on the offensive end and poor defensive positioning (-0.8) resulted in a steep negative rating during his short stint. He was repeatedly caught out of position on back-door cuts, giving up easy layups. Failing to generate any downhill pressure allowed the defense to completely ignore him.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.8
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 8.0m -4.6
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0