GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
14
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.4

Despite a sparkling +11.1 offensive box score driven by steady playmaking, underlying transitional costs dragged his final impact into the red. Opponents likely targeted his size on the other end, bleeding away the value he created through his perimeter orchestration. The stark contrast between his box metrics and -1.4 total score points to hidden defensive concessions.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -36.3
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 26.3m -15.1
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylen Brown 21.7m
12
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.2

A severe regression in scoring volume and perimeter efficiency tanked his overall impact to a dismal -9.2. Forced isolation possessions and clanked jumpers derailed the offensive flow, completely neutralizing his typical superstar gravity. While he remained engaged defensively, the sheer number of empty offensive trips defined his night.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 35.2%
Net Rtg -41.4
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 21.7m -12.4
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Josh Minott 19.3m
10
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.0

Relentless defensive havoc and elite +5.0 hustle metrics completely overshadowed a brutal shooting performance. He generated immense value by blowing up passing lanes and securing extra possessions, proving you don't need to hit shots to dominate a game. This chaotic, high-energy defensive presence was the engine behind his +8.0 impact score.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg -48.5
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +5.0
Defense +7.3
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 19.3m -11.0
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Derrick White 19.1m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

An ice-cold shooting night completely short-circuited his offensive value, as he bricked wide-open looks and stalled half-court sets. He fought hard to compensate with a stellar +5.5 defensive rating, chasing guards over screens relentlessly. Ultimately, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.7%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -53.1
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 19.1m -11.0
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Neemias Queta 15.4m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.2

Dominant interior finishing continued to be his calling card, extending his streak of highly efficient shooting nights. He sealed defenders early and provided a massive catch radius in the pick-and-roll, driving a sturdy +9.1 box score impact. Solid drop-coverage execution ensured his offensive gains translated directly to the bottom line.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 15.4m -8.7
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+19.9

An absolute masterclass in two-way efficiency drove a stratospheric +19.9 net impact, completely shattering his recent baseline. He paired nuclear catch-and-shoot execution with an absurd +8.7 hustle rating, seemingly winning every 50/50 ball in his vicinity. This two-way eruption was the defining performance of the night, punishing the defense every time they lost him in transition.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 114.2%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +8.7
Defense +6.2
Raw total +32.8
Avg player in 22.5m -12.9
Impact +19.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 18.7m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Doubling his usual scoring output through aggressive perimeter hunting wasn't enough to overcome his defensive shortcomings. He frequently lost his man off the ball, leading to a -1.2 defensive rating that negated his offensive strides. The lack of secondary hustle plays meant his impact was strictly limited to his streaky shooting.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.2
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 18.7m -10.7
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Sam Hauser 16.9m
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

A drastic reduction in shot volume marginalized his primary weapon, turning him into an offensive bystander for most of his minutes. While he hit the few perimeter looks he was given, his inability to get open against tight coverage stifled the second unit's spacing. This lack of offensive assertiveness resulted in a disappointing -3.0 net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -33.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 16.9m -9.6
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.5

Although he aggressively hunted his own shot to spike his scoring average, his overall floor game was a massive net negative. Blown defensive assignments and poor rotational awareness constantly put the team in rotation, bleeding points at an alarming rate. The hollow scoring boost completely masked how badly he was targeted on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -20.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 16.9m -9.7
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.0

Disastrous shot selection and an inability to separate from defenders cratered his impact to a team-worst -10.0. He actively harmed the offense by forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock while offering zero resistance on the defensive perimeter. It was a one-dimensional performance where the one dimension entirely failed.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense -1.0
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 16.8m -9.6
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 15.5m
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

A sudden and total loss of touch around the basket snapped his impressive efficiency streak and rendered him unplayable offensively. Without his usual post-scoring gravity to anchor the bench unit, opponents easily exploited his sluggish pick-and-roll defense. The complete disappearance of his scoring touch was the sole reason for his -6.9 plunge.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -31.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 15.5m -8.7
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Forcing contested perimeter shots rather than playing to his strengths inside severely damaged his offensive utility. His usually disruptive length didn't translate to meaningful defensive stops, allowing opponents to score comfortably during his rotation. This lack of discipline on both ends culminated in a sluggish -4.6 impact score.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.1
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 12.8m -7.3
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.7

Clanking a series of wide-open perimeter looks completely stalled the offensive momentum during his brief appearance. While he managed to hold his own defensively, a complete lack of hustle plays and poor shot-making kept him in the negative. He simply couldn't punish the defense for leaving him unguarded.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense +1.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 9.8m -5.5
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
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Stout interior positioning during a quick cameo yielded a highly respectable +3.1 defensive rating. He didn't force the issue offensively, instead focusing entirely on walling off the paint and executing drop coverages. This disciplined, defense-first approach ensured his short stint was a net positive.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +58.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 6.2m -3.5
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Extremely limited garbage-time minutes prevented him from establishing any sort of rhythm or statistical footprint. He merely occupied space on the floor during the final sequences, resulting in a negligible -0.9 rating. There simply wasn't enough court time to evaluate his form.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -133.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 1.9m -1.1
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 32.2m
17
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.4

Despite maintaining his steady scoring rhythm and extending his streak of highly efficient shooting, hidden transition costs kept his net impact muted at +1.4. The raw box score metrics suggest dominance, but defensive lapses or empty possessions likely bled value away. His ability to collapse the paint remains his primary driver of positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +43.7
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.4
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 32.2m -18.4
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Alperen Sengun 30.6m
16
pts
10
reb
9
ast
Impact
+0.5

A stark drop in finishing efficiency snapped a three-game hot streak and dragged down his overall offensive value. However, relentless activity on the glass and in passing lanes generated a +4.1 hustle rating to salvage a positive net impact. His playmaking and defensive positioning partially masked the uncharacteristic struggles around the rim.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +42.5
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +4.1
Defense +8.0
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 30.6m -17.4
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S Kevin Durant 29.6m
26
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.6

Elite shot selection fueled a dominant +11.6 overall impact, as he maximized offensive possessions by needing very few attempts to reach his scoring average. Strong rotational awareness translated to a +6.9 defensive rating, ensuring his offensive efficiency wasn't given back on the other end. This surgical precision defined his entire stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 86.9%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +36.0
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.9
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 29.6m -16.8
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
12
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.0

Smothering perimeter defense and switchability drove a massive +12.3 defensive impact score. Even with a slight dip in his recent scoring volume, his improved shot quality kept the offense humming. He anchored the frontcourt effectively without needing to dominate the ball.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +34.5
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +12.3
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 26.4m -15.0
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 1
S Josh Okogie 21.0m
12
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.6

An unexpected perimeter barrage completely warped his offensive projection, yielding a 500% scoring spike compared to his recent baseline. That sudden floor-spacing gravity was paired with an elite +6.8 hustle rating characterized by loose-ball recoveries. It was a classic energy-guy performance elevated by outlier shooting luck.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +24.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +6.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 21.0m -12.0
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Tari Eason 20.1m
12
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Catch-and-shoot execution from the perimeter inflated his box score, but a surprising lack of physical engagement resulted in a negative overall impact. His typically robust hustle metrics plummeted to just +0.8, indicating he was a step slow on 50/50 balls and weak-side rotations. The perimeter efficiency simply couldn't offset the lack of dirty work.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +42.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 20.1m -11.5
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
Clint Capela 18.1m
4
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Rim deterrence and vertical spacing defined this performance, generating a +5.4 defensive rating that anchored the bench units. Though his offensive volume remains negligible, he capitalized on lob threats to spike his recent scoring baseline. His value was entirely derived from altering shots in the paint rather than touching the ball.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.4
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 18.1m -10.2
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.2

Blistering perimeter shot-making fueled a highly positive offensive stint, punishing defensive drop coverages with ease. While his defensive metrics dipped slightly into the red, his +3.2 hustle score showed he was actively trying to navigate screens. The sheer gravity of his outside stroke was the undeniable catalyst for his +5.2 total impact.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +59.4
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +3.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 16.8m -9.6
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Steven Adams 14.4m
4
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.1

Physical screen-setting and positional rebounding in limited minutes provided a steady stabilizing effect for the second unit. He didn't force any offense, instead generating value by clearing out space and executing his role flawlessly. This bruising interior presence dictated the tempo during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +46.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 14.4m -8.3
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

Offensive invisibility cratered his overall rating, as he failed to bend the defense or convert on his limited touches. A modest +1.7 hustle score wasn't nearly enough to salvage a stint where the spacing suffered drastically with him on the floor. The complete lack of scoring threat allowed opponents to freely pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -27.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 8.4m -4.8
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

A failure to generate dribble penetration or organize the offense led to a stagnant -3.1 overall impact during his brief rotation. He was essentially a non-factor on the offensive end, attempting just one shot and allowing the defense to rest. Minor defensive contributions couldn't outweigh the dead-weight offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -17.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 7.5m -4.2
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jeff Green 7.5m
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.8

Flawless execution on spot-up opportunities instantly injected life into the offense and reversed a recent scoreless slump. By capitalizing on every look from deep, he maximized a very short leash to post a +2.8 net impact. It was a textbook veteran cameo defined entirely by shot readiness.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -17.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 7.5m -4.3
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
JD Davison 7.5m
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Perfect shooting from the field allowed him to double his recent scoring average and keep the offense afloat during garbage time. He played within himself, avoiding the erratic decision-making that often plagues young guards. This disciplined shot selection was the sole driver of his positive +0.9 rating.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -17.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 7.5m -4.2
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0