GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 34.8m
19
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.5

Exceptional hustle and point-of-attack defense were ultimately overshadowed by a brutal volume-shooting performance. Chucking up fifteen missed attempts derailed the offense's rhythm, dragging his rating into the red despite a noticeable spike in his raw scoring totals.

Shooting
FG 5/20 (25.0%)
3PT 3/12 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.0%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg +18.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +7.3
Defense +6.5
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 34.8m -21.6
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Josh Minott 32.9m
11
pts
15
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.9

Relentless activity on the glass and elite defensive metrics drove a highly positive overall evaluation. Even with a slight dip in his usual scoring output, his ability to consistently end opponent possessions via rebounding and rim deterrence made him invaluable.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +6.2
Defense +10.9
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 32.9m -20.3
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 8.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaylen Brown 31.8m
30
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.6

Sustaining a dominant offensive tear, his rating was propelled by elite shot creation and highly efficient execution. He compounded this scoring gravity with excellent hustle metrics, consistently beating defenders to loose balls to secure extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.8%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +21.4
Hustle +6.7
Defense +3.3
Raw total +31.4
Avg player in 31.8m -19.8
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
-6.0

A severe perimeter shooting slump cratered his overall impact despite respectable defensive and playmaking metrics. Firing blanks from beyond the arc stalled out multiple offensive sets, completely negating the value of his facilitation.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +29.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.5
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 31.7m -19.7
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 25.6m
10
pts
13
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.8

Utter domination of the painted area fueled a massive overall rating, highlighted by an astronomical defensive score. He sustained his streak of highly efficient interior finishing while completely suffocating opponent driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +44.2
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +12.7
Raw total +29.8
Avg player in 25.6m -16.0
Impact +13.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.5

Operating strictly as a perimeter specialist limited his ability to positively influence the broader game flow. While the outside stroke was highly efficient, a complete lack of rebounding and minimal defensive resistance allowed opponents to exploit his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 26.4m -16.3
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Sam Hauser 21.2m
21
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.5

Lethal perimeter marksmanship single-handedly warped the opponent's defensive shell and drove a massive positive rating. Capitalizing on a major scoring surge, his ability to consistently punish late closeouts provided invaluable spacing for the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 7/13 (53.8%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 21.2m -13.1
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 16.3m
10
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.2

Maximized a brief rotational stint through relentless interior activity and mistake-free execution. Continuing a long streak of efficient finishing, his high-energy hustle plays consistently generated second-chance opportunities for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +0.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +5.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 16.3m -10.1
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Extreme offensive passivity torpedoed his overall rating during a ten-minute stint. Refusing to even attempt a field goal severely compromised the unit's spacing, rendering his minor contributions on the glass largely irrelevant.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.2
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 10.2m -6.4
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Failed to make any tangible imprint on the game during a brief rotational cameo. Generating zero offensive attempts or peripheral stats caused his rating to slip into the negative through sheer inactivity.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 4.0m -2.4
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

A fleeting appearance yielded almost no statistical footprint beyond a lone contested rebound. He simply didn't log enough floor time to establish any meaningful rhythm or positive impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 3.5m -2.3
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Logged less than two minutes of floor time without recording a single statistical event. The cameo was entirely inconsequential, resulting in a slightly negative baseline score.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +116.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.5m -0.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Evan Mobley 34.1m
19
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.5

Elite rim protection and defensive positioning nearly salvaged his rating, but an uncharacteristically clunky shooting night kept him slightly in the red. Snapping a four-game streak of highly efficient scoring, his high volume of missed interior looks dragged down an otherwise dominant defensive showing.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.8%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg -31.9
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +8.7
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 34.1m -21.3
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
15
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-12.8

A heavy reliance on the three-point line masked a complete lack of interior pressure, contributing to a surprisingly steep negative rating. While the perimeter stroke was working, defensive lapses and an inability to generate high-percentage looks inside the arc severely punished his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense -0.2
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 31.9m -19.9
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S De'Andre Hunter 30.2m
18
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

A barrage of missed perimeter jumpers severely depressed his overall impact despite respectable defensive metrics. Firing blanks from deep offset the value he provided through active hustle plays and perimeter containment.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 3/12 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.9%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg -40.3
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +5.3
Defense +3.1
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 30.2m -18.8
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 65.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylon Tyson 26.5m
19
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.1

An unexpected offensive breakout fueled a highly positive rating, as he nearly doubled his usual scoring output through hyper-efficient shot selection. He compounded the value of those clean offensive looks with stout perimeter defense, maximizing his minutes on both ends.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +3.7
Defense +5.0
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 26.5m -16.5
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jarrett Allen 25.0m
16
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.3

Sustained his pattern of elite interior efficiency, anchoring the frontcourt with mistake-free basketball. His massive box score impact was driven by excellent shot selection and finishing around the rim, cleanly converting his touches without forcing bad looks.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.0%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +3.9
Defense +4.1
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 25.0m -15.6
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Lonzo Ball 24.4m
3
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.5

Exceptional hustle metrics and disruptive perimeter defense were ultimately undone by complete offensive invisibility. Because defenders could freely sag off him due to poor shooting execution, his playmaking lanes vanished and dragged his overall rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +7.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 24.4m -15.1
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.4

A massive scoring spike relative to his usual baseline couldn't rescue a deeply negative overall rating. The offensive burst was largely negated by defensive passivity and an inability to string together stops during his rotational shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 22.2m -13.8
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dean Wade 17.6m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Floating on the perimeter limited his ability to positively influence the game flow, resulting in a negative overall grade. Even with a slight scoring bump compared to his recent slump, his strictly one-dimensional role as a spot-up spacer failed to move the needle.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.9
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 17.6m -11.0
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.3

Completely blanking on the offensive end created a black hole for the second unit's production. Missing all of his perimeter attempts while offering negative defensive resistance caused his impact score to plummet during a highly ineffective stint.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -38.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.0
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 13.8m -8.5
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

A brief, low-energy cameo yielded almost no tangible production across the board. Snapping a recent streak of efficient shooting, his failure to generate any peripheral activity or defensive pressure kept him firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -56.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 8.6m -5.2
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

Forcing multiple bad shots in less than three minutes of action instantly tanked his rating. He offered zero rim protection or rebounding during this fleeting stint, making him a net negative across all categories.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -83.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 2.8m -1.7
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Essentially logged a pure cardio session during his brief time on the floor. Generating absolutely zero box score or hustle metrics meant his impact score simply bled out through passive play.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -83.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.8m -1.7
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0