GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Josh Minott 33.7m
21
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.4

Exceptional defensive anticipation (+7.6) blew up multiple pick-and-roll actions and generated crucial transition opportunities. He capitalized on the offensive end with decisive cuts and confident perimeter strokes, far exceeding his usual output. This two-way surge provided a massive spark and stabilized the rotation during key momentum swings.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +25.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.6
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 33.7m -19.6
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Derrick White 28.8m
12
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+9.6

An absolute masterclass in perimeter defense (+10.5) completely neutralized the opponent's primary ball-handlers. He supplemented his lockdown coverage with elite playmaking and timely perimeter shots that punished defensive rotations. His cerebral approach and hustle metrics (+4.6) glued the entire lineup together on both ends.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +37.9
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +4.6
Defense +10.5
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 28.8m -16.7
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
S Jaylen Brown 25.9m
35
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+20.0

Relentless rim pressure and elite shot-making completely dismantled the opposing wing defenders. His suffocating on-ball defense (+4.0) forced multiple bad passes, igniting fast breaks that he personally finished. This dominant two-way display dictated the tempo and overwhelmed the opponent's primary stoppers.

Shooting
FG 13/21 (61.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 70.1%
USG% 40.6%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +28.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.0
Raw total +35.1
Avg player in 25.9m -15.1
Impact +20.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 24.2m
15
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+19.1

Total domination of the restricted area was highlighted by flawless finishing and overwhelming activity on the glass. His massive defensive footprint (+6.0) completely deterred interior drives, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. Continuing a streak of elite efficiency, his physical presence dictated the terms of engagement in the paint.

Shooting
FG 7/7 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.2%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +47.8
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +4.7
Defense +6.0
Raw total +33.1
Avg player in 24.2m -14.0
Impact +19.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
18
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.7

Pushed the pace relentlessly, using quick-trigger shooting and sharp distribution to keep the defense scrambling. High-energy hustle plays (+3.5) extended offensive possessions and disrupted the opponent's rhythm. While his defensive impact was negligible, his offensive engine kept the second unit thriving.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +70.6
+/- +36
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.3
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 23.9m -13.9
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.8

High-volume perimeter chucking yielded mixed results and frequently stalled the team's offensive flow. Defensive lapses (-0.7) at the point of attack allowed straight-line drives that compromised the interior help. The sheer volume of his attempts masked a lack of efficiency that ultimately dragged down his overall net impact.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.7
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 29.8m -17.2
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jordan Walsh 23.9m
7
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Excellent defensive versatility (+3.5) allowed him to seamlessly switch across multiple positions and blow up perimeter actions. He picked his spots perfectly on offense, capitalizing on broken plays without forcing his own shot. This disciplined, low-mistake approach provided a stabilizing presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +56.9
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 23.9m -13.8
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Sam Hauser 22.3m
3
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.4

A brutal shooting slump from beyond the arc completely neutralized his primary value as a floor spacer. Opposing defenses quickly realized he was cold, sagging off to clog driving lanes for the primary creators. Despite solid defensive rotations, his inability to punish closeouts severely handicapped the offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 18.8%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 22.3m -12.9
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.9

Showed flashes of offensive confidence that far exceeded his typical output, but struggled with defensive positioning. Minor lapses in rotation (-0.1) allowed easy backdoor cuts that negated his scoring contributions. While the offensive aggression was a positive step, structural defensive mistakes kept his overall impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.1
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 16.6m -9.6
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 7.1m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.1

Overcame a rare shooting blank by anchoring the paint with sturdy positional defense (+2.0) and active contests. His sheer size and hustle (+1.9) created space for teammates, even as his personal scoring streak came to a halt. Finding ways to contribute without scoring showcased his growing rotational maturity.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 7.1m -4.3
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Failed to make any tangible mark during a brief stint, looking hesitant to engage in the offensive flow. A step slow on defensive closeouts (-0.4) allowed opponents to find a quick rhythm against the bench unit. The complete lack of production rendered his minutes entirely empty.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 3.7m -2.1
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Alex Sarr 29.0m
31
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+19.0

An absolute breakout performance fueled by aggressive rim-running and decisive perimeter shooting completely overwhelmed the defense. His massive defensive footprint (+6.3) and relentless hustle metrics indicate he dominated the paint on both ends. This two-way masterclass shattered his recent offensive slump and dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.2%
USG% 34.8%
Net Rtg -46.5
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +25.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense +6.3
Raw total +35.9
Avg player in 29.0m -16.9
Impact +19.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Kyshawn George 28.5m
9
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.2

Remarkable hustle metrics (+6.9) were completely negated by poor shot quality and defensive lapses. Forcing contested looks from the perimeter stalled offensive momentum and allowed opponents to leak out in transition. Energy alone couldn't mask the structural damage caused by his inefficient decision-making.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.2%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +6.9
Defense -1.1
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 28.5m -16.5
Impact -12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
12
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.7

Flawless shot selection drove a highly efficient offensive stint, continuing a recent trend of high-percentage looks. His defensive positioning (+4.1) further amplified his positive floor impact by shutting down driving lanes. A disciplined approach to his role ensured he maximized his limited minutes without forcing action.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 112.8%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.1
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 19.1m -11.1
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S CJ McCollum 17.6m
3
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-13.3

A disastrous shooting night cratered his value, as he repeatedly settled for contested jumpers early in the shot clock. The resulting empty trips fueled opponent transition opportunities, compounding his negative defensive impact. This sharp deviation from his recent scoring consistency severely handicapped the second unit's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 1/10 (10.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 14.4%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.9
Raw total -3.1
Avg player in 17.6m -10.2
Impact -13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Bilal Coulibaly 16.5m
1
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.6

An uncharacteristically passive and erratic offensive showing derailed his overall impact, snapping a solid recent scoring stretch. Empty possessions and missed perimeter looks severely dragged down the team's half-court rhythm. Despite some minor hustle contributions, his inability to punish closeouts left a glaring void on the wing.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 8.5%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense -5.1
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.2
Raw total -3.1
Avg player in 16.5m -9.5
Impact -12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-14.1

Extreme passivity on offense severely limited his overall influence, failing to pressure the defense or create advantages. While his defensive rotations remained solid (+2.0), the lack of scoring aggression allowed defenders to sag off and clog the passing lanes. This hesitation to attack the rim represented a stark regression from his typical offensive output.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg -50.5
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 30.6m -17.8
Impact -14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Tre Johnson 24.2m
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.5

Struggled to find any rhythm within the offensive structure, resulting in a steep drop-off from his recent scoring averages. Defensive miscommunications (-1.6) further compounded his struggles, allowing easy penetration against his matchups. His inability to generate quality looks or contain the point of attack made him a significant liability during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -32.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.6
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 24.2m -14.0
Impact -14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Calculated drives and timely cuts drove a highly efficient offensive rating during his time on the floor. He maintained defensive discipline (+1.3) by staying attached to shooters and navigating screens effectively. A steady, mistake-free approach allowed him to positively influence the game without demanding high usage.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.0%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -34.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 16.7m -9.7
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Efficient spot-up shooting was overshadowed by an inability to generate secondary actions or impact the glass. While he capitalized on the open looks provided, his overall footprint remained muted due to a lack of off-ball gravity. A quiet defensive presence prevented him from flipping his net impact into the positive.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +3.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 12.7m -7.4
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.6

Dominated his interior matchups with decisive post moves and excellent touch around the basket. His defensive verticality (+2.2) deterred drives and secured the paint during crucial second-quarter stretches. This highly efficient interior presence perfectly complemented the perimeter attack and sustained his recent hot streak.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.4%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 12.7m -7.3
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Will Riley 12.0m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

A drastic reduction in offensive volume neutralized his typical scoring gravity, allowing the defense to focus elsewhere. Despite converting the few chances he took, his inability to demand the ball stalled the team's half-court sets. This passive approach severely undercut his overall impact compared to his recent high-scoring outbursts.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -37.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 12.0m -7.0
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Elite defensive pressure (+4.1) at the point of attack nearly salvaged a disjointed offensive stint. Rushed decisions with the ball led to empty possessions, preventing him from establishing any scoring rhythm. His high-motor closeouts defined his minutes, even as his shot selection left points on the board.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.1
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 8.0m -4.7
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.7

Smart spacing and decisive quick-hitters allowed him to maintain a positive impact despite a dip in overall usage. He provided sturdy positional defense (+0.7) that helped wall off the paint against driving guards. Maximizing his limited touches ensured the offense kept humming during his brief rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 6.3m -3.7
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Johnson 6.3m
1
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Operated strictly as a ball-mover, refusing to look at the rim and rendering himself an offensive non-threat. Active hands in the passing lanes (+1.4 hustle) provided a slight boost, but the lack of scoring pressure allowed defenders to cheat off him. His pure facilitating role ultimately resulted in a neutral floor presence.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 6.3m -3.6
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0