GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 38.9m
22
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
+4.3

Orchestrated the offense with precision, consistently making the right read against trapping pick-and-roll coverages. While a few forced floaters dragged down his efficiency, his elite screen navigation and timely weak-side blocks cemented a highly positive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +4.7
Defense +4.5
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 38.9m -23.8
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jaylen Brown 38.6m
33
pts
13
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.8

Overcame glaring perimeter inefficiency by relentlessly bullying his way to the rim and generating crucial second-chance opportunities. His suffocating on-ball defense against the opposing primary creator effectively neutralized the opponent's main offensive engine down the stretch.

Shooting
FG 14/33 (42.4%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg +27.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +6.3
Defense +10.0
Raw total +34.5
Avg player in 38.6m -23.7
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 33.5m
14
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.3

Dominated the interior through sheer physicality, establishing deep post position and altering countless trajectories around the rim. Even with several missed bunnies in traffic, his relentless offensive rebounding generated critical extra possessions that wore down the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.6%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +4.5
Defense +7.5
Raw total +29.7
Avg player in 33.5m -20.4
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jordan Walsh 33.2m
6
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.5

Scrappy loose-ball recoveries and switchable perimeter defense kept his overall value afloat. However, his total impact was capped by offensive hesitancy, as defenders routinely ignored him on the perimeter to clog the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +5.2
Defense +7.3
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 33.2m -20.2
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
30
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.7

Torched drop coverages with lethal pull-up shooting from well beyond the arc, single-handedly breaking the opposing defensive scheme. His constant off-ball relocation punished lazy closeouts and created massive gravitational pull that opened up the floor for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 8/13 (61.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +27.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.6
Raw total +30.0
Avg player in 33.1m -20.3
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

Struggled to process defensive rotations quickly enough, passing up open catch-and-shoot looks only to drive into heavy traffic. His indecision killed offensive momentum and frequently forced teammates into taking low-percentage shots at the end of the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +27.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 18.2m -11.1
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Luka Garza 14.4m
13
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.0

Capitalized on mismatch opportunities in the post, using flawless footwork to generate highly efficient offense during a crucial second-quarter burst. His heavy feet in pick-and-roll coverage were a liability, but his relentless screening and soft touch around the basket vastly outweighed the defensive give-back.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.9%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +5.6
Defense -2.7
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 14.4m -8.8
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.8

A disastrously flat stint was defined by poor shot selection and an inability to create separation off the dribble. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation on the defensive end, forcing early rotations that led directly to wide-open corner looks for the opposition.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -19.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense -5.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total -4.5
Avg player in 11.9m -7.3
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Josh Minott 11.5m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.5

Wandered aimlessly through offensive sets, failing to set meaningful screens or cut with purpose. This lack of engagement allowed his defender to freely roam and disrupt passing lanes, dragging down the entire unit's execution.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.3%
Net Rtg -82.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Offense -0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 11.5m -6.9
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Sam Hauser 6.8m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.4

Rushed his mechanics against tight closeouts, resulting in a string of long misses that ignited opponent transition opportunities. Without his gravity as a floor-spacer functioning properly, the half-court offense completely stalled during his brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -119.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense -2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -3.3
Avg player in 6.8m -4.1
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 37.8m
37
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
+8.5

Masterful manipulation of defensive switches allowed him to generate immense value through isolation step-backs and drawn fouls. Even with several missed heavily-contested layups, his sheer gravity and relentless hunting of mismatches dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 14/15 (93.3%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 36.5%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +24.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +31.6
Avg player in 37.8m -23.1
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ivica Zubac 33.6m
16
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.4

Anchored the interior with exceptional verticality, altering numerous shots at the rim to drive a stellar defensive rating. His ability to consistently seal off defenders in the deep post created high-percentage looks and stabilized the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -22.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +7.3
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 33.6m -20.4
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S John Collins 30.3m
17
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

High-volume interior finishing masked a highly exploitable defensive performance in the pick-and-roll. Opponents repeatedly targeted his drop coverage, negating the value of his aggressive rim-running and consistent paint scoring.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.1
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 30.3m -18.5
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kris Dunn 24.5m
6
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.2

A disastrous offensive shift completely tanked his overall value despite trademark ball pressure on the perimeter. Pounding the air out of the ball and settling for contested late-clock jumpers derailed the second unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -29.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.7
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 24.5m -15.0
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Despite solid perimeter containment that boosted his defensive metrics, his brief stint was marred by offensive invisibility. He failed to pressure the rim in transition, forcing the coaching staff to pull him early to find better spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -47.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 10.9m -6.7
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
11
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.0

Impact cratered due to a string of forced, off-balance perimeter heaves early in the shot clock that ignited opponent fast breaks. His inability to stay in front of quicker guards on the perimeter compounded the damage during a massive second-half run.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +25.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 34.8m -21.3
Impact -13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kobe Sanders 22.6m
11
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.3

Energized the rotation with relentless point-of-attack defense and timely cuts to the basket. His decisive decision-making against closing defenders kept the offensive chain moving and directly fueled a crucial third-quarter surge.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 22.6m -13.9
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Provided quality weak-side rotations and active hands in the passing lanes, but his hesitation to shoot off the catch bogged down the offensive spacing. Defenders aggressively sagged off him in the corners, allowing them to pack the paint and stall the team's primary actions.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +3.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 20.3m -12.4
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Brook Lopez 14.2m
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.7

Elite positional awareness in drop coverage completely deterred opponent rim attempts during his short stint. He maximized his floor time by executing flawless box-outs and contesting everything in the paint, proving highly effective even without offensive volume.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +47.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 14.2m -8.6
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.2

Struggled to find the speed of the game, consistently arriving a half-step late on defensive closeouts. A lack of off-ball movement made him a non-factor in the half-court, resulting in a negative stint defined by passive positioning.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 11.0m -6.8
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1