GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
24
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
+6.7

Deep perimeter shot-making completely warped the opponent's defensive shell and opened up the floor. He capitalized on drop coverages by punishing them from well beyond the arc, though a few careless live-ball turnovers likely kept his overall rating from being astronomical. His aggressive trigger dictated the tempo of the second unit.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.6%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +67.7
+/- +42
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +21.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 30.4m -17.3
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Derrick White 26.2m
20
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+18.9

A two-way masterclass defined by suffocating point-of-attack defense and pristine decision-making in transition. He completely broke out of a recent scoring slump by aggressively attacking closeouts and generating deflections that ignited fast breaks. This was a textbook example of a guard controlling the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +42.4
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +6.7
Defense +9.4
Raw total +33.8
Avg player in 26.2m -14.9
Impact +18.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaylen Brown 25.3m
19
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.3

A sharp drop-off from his recent scoring explosions was mitigated by steady, methodical playmaking in the half-court. While he left points on the board with a few uncharacteristic misses at the rim, he avoided forcing the issue and kept the ball moving. His overall impact remained slightly positive thanks to a balanced floor game rather than sheer volume.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +57.5
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 25.3m -14.4
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Neemias Queta 20.0m
13
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.7

Flawless execution as a lob threat and rim-runner continues to make him an analytical darling. He punished over-rotations with emphatic finishes and walled off the paint defensively, refusing to concede easy angles. His perfect shooting night was a direct result of elite spatial awareness in the dunker spot.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.9%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +62.6
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.8
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 20.0m -11.4
Impact +13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jordan Walsh 17.8m
7
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.6

Absolute chaos creation on the defensive end and relentless pursuit of 50/50 balls drove a spectacular hustle rating. He completely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow by blowing up dribble hand-offs and fighting through screens. This was a masterclass in generating massive value without needing plays called for him.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +50.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +7.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 17.8m -10.2
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Sam Hauser 22.6m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.0

Cold shooting from the corners severely cramped the floor and derailed several half-court sets. While he remained disciplined in his defensive rotations, the sheer volume of bricked open looks acted as a massive anchor on his overall impact. Opponents actively ignored him on the perimeter, completely stagnating the offense.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +32.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 22.6m -12.8
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Josh Minott 22.0m
9
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.8

Excellent lateral quickness and switchability on the perimeter kept him highly relevant on the defensive end. However, a passive approach on offense and a tendency to clog driving lanes prevented him from registering a positive overall impact. He essentially played to a draw, trading defensive stops for stagnant offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.5
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 22.0m -12.4
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
6
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-8.3

Pounding the air out of the ball and settling for contested long-range jumpers cratered his offensive efficiency. His inability to beat his primary defender off the dribble led to late-clock bailouts and empty possessions. The playmaking flashes were entirely overshadowed by the highly damaging shot profile.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 21.8m -12.4
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Luka Garza 17.2m
14
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.5

Bullying smaller defenders in the post and executing flawless pick-and-pop reads resulted in a hyper-efficient offensive clinic. He continues to be an absolute automatic bucket when establishing deep position, punishing every mismatch thrown his way. His physical screen-setting alone generated immense value by freeing up the guards.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 17.2m -9.8
Impact +13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Frantic energy yielded a few extra possessions, but poor spatial awareness on offense neutralized the hustle. He frequently drifted out of position, leading to broken plays and forcing teammates into tough late-clock situations. The raw activity level couldn't mask the lack of structural discipline.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +52.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 12.8m -7.2
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Capitalized on his limited minutes by decisively firing off the catch and punishing defensive lapses. He moved with purpose off the ball, dragging his defender through screens to create passing windows. A highly efficient, low-maintenance performance that provided a steadying presence for the bench unit.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense -0.1
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 11.5m -6.5
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.2

Looking completely overwhelmed by the speed of the game, he was targeted relentlessly in isolation sets. Rushed decisions with the ball and blown defensive assignments quickly piled up negative value during his brief stint. He was a distinct liability who failed to execute even basic offensive actions.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total -2.5
Avg player in 8.2m -4.7
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.8

Instant offense in a micro-burst, knocking down a pair of crucial triples that immediately tilted the momentum. He didn't force a single action, simply spacing the floor perfectly and punishing the defense for helping one pass away. A textbook example of maximizing garbage time or end-of-quarter minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 4.3m -2.5
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.5

Settling for an excessive diet of perimeter jumpers severely limited his offensive efficiency and let the defense off the hook. While he scrapped hard for loose balls and maintained solid weak-side positioning, the sheer volume of missed threes acted as empty possessions. The hustle metrics simply couldn't outpace the poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -36.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.4
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 24.6m -13.9
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jock Landale 24.5m
11
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.4

Anchoring the paint with excellent positional awareness drove a strong defensive rating, keeping his overall impact in the green. Continuing his recent trend of efficient finishing around the rim, he capitalized on drop-coverage mismatches. However, a few sloppy screens or live-ball mistakes likely prevented a monster plus-minus showing.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -64.3
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 24.5m -13.9
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 24.4m
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Tremendous energy on the margins couldn't salvage a disastrous shooting night that stalled the half-court offense. He generated significant value through deflections and weak-side rotations, but missing a high volume of forced jumpers ultimately dragged his net score into the red. His offensive rhythm has completely evaporated compared to his recent baseline.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -59.9
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 24.4m -13.8
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

High-volume interior attempts yielded decent production, but his overall impact flatlined due to empty possessions and defensive miscues. The positive hustle metrics were completely negated by forced shots in traffic and foul-prone closeouts. A classic case of raw scoring masking a fundamentally inefficient floor game.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 33.9%
Net Rtg -62.2
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +0.8
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 23.3m -13.2
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
0
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.6

A complete offensive disappearing act was compounded by hidden mistakes that tanked his overall rating. Despite decent perimeter pressure, his inability to convert open looks and a likely string of costly turnovers erased any defensive goodwill. He was essentially a void on the floor during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -65.8
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 18.7m -10.7
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Spencer 29.4m
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.5

A brutal regression from his recent form saw him completely neutralized by aggressive ball denial. His inability to create separation led to stagnant possessions and forced passes that severely damaged his overall rating. Even a handful of solid defensive rotations couldn't pull his impact out of the gutter.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 29.4m -16.7
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.8

The recent hot streak hit a brick wall as he struggled to finish through contact against a set defense. Clunky offensive execution and poorly timed fouls wiped out any baseline value he provided in the box score. His inability to convert in the paint turned potential momentum swings into dead possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -20.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 26.1m -14.9
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.6

An uncharacteristically erratic offensive performance derailed his night, snapping a stretch of highly efficient play. He repeatedly forced drives into heavy traffic, resulting in low-quality looks and transition opportunities going the other way. The minor hustle contributions were a drop in the bucket compared to the damage done by his shot selection.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -36.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 25.6m -14.5
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Santi Aldama 23.6m
14
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.7

Elite rim protection and flawless weak-side help rotations fueled a massive defensive rating that carried his overall impact. Even though his perimeter stroke was inconsistent, he made up for the misses by altering shots at the basket and securing contested boards. His defensive verticality completely changed the geometry of the opponent's drives.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.3%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +8.1
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 23.6m -13.4
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
PJ Hall 7.0m
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Maximized a brief stint on the floor by executing simple, high-percentage actions in the pick-and-roll. He avoided costly mistakes and stayed within himself, providing a sturdy screening presence that opened up driving lanes. A perfectly functional rotational shift that kept the team's momentum intact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 7.0m -4.0
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GG Jackson 7.0m
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Despite his scoring production falling off a cliff compared to his recent tear, he managed to stay net-positive through disciplined on-ball defense. He struggled to find his spots against physical wing defenders, leading to several contested misses. However, his willingness to sit in a stance and contest without fouling salvaged his brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 41.2%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 7.0m -4.0
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Completely invisible during his minutes, functioning as a cardio participant rather than an active threat. He failed to register a single meaningful action, allowing his matchup to freely roam and double-team elsewhere. The negative rating reflects the severe cost of playing 4-on-5 offensively.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 5.9m -3.4
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0