GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 33.7m
30
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
+6.6

Aggressive downhill driving consistently compromised the opponent's interior defense. Even when his jumper wasn't falling at an elite clip, his sheer physical force in isolation drew rotations and created advantages. He anchored the offensive attack by refusing to settle for low-quality perimeter looks.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 57.8%
USG% 38.2%
Net Rtg +20.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 33.7m -18.0
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
15
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.5

Defensive mismatches in the backcourt severely undercut his steady offensive production. Opposing guards repeatedly hunted him in pick-and-roll actions, forcing defensive rotations that led to open corner threes. The points he generated were essentially given right back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +26.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 30.1m -16.2
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Derrick White 29.6m
19
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.6

Elite floor-spacing and quick decision-making kept the offensive engine humming smoothly. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns by relocating effectively on the perimeter. Timely weak-side blocks and disciplined closeouts ensured his two-way impact remained solidly in the green.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +31.7
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.7
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 29.6m -16.0
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jordan Walsh 26.3m
17
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.4

An unexpected eruption in perimeter efficiency completely tilted the floor. Punishing late closeouts with decisive, confident strokes turned him into a lethal release valve for the primary creators. His ability to hit contested corner looks broke the back of the opposing zone scheme.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 114.2%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +54.9
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.7
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 26.3m -14.1
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 26.0m
10
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.6

Utter dominance on the offensive glass and high-energy rim runs defined a spectacular two-way showing. He consistently beat his man down the floor, generating deep post position and easy finishes. Elite contest rates at the basket cemented his status as a massive positive.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +5.0
Defense +6.1
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 26.0m -13.9
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Sam Hauser 24.4m
12
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.7

Lethal off-ball movement forced the defense into constant communication errors. Beyond the pure gravity of his jumper, he executed defensive rotations flawlessly, rarely getting caught out of position. Punishing drop coverage from the wings made him an indispensable floor-spacer tonight.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.9
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 24.4m -13.0
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Minott 22.9m
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.5

A drastic reduction in offensive usage limited his ability to impact the game on his usual scale. While his defensive activity remained disruptive, he struggled to find cutting lanes or get involved in half-court sets. The lack of offensive assertiveness resulted in a mostly neutral outing.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.0%
Net Rtg +48.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.4
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 22.9m -12.2
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.3

Provided a quick, efficient scoring punch as a secondary ball-handler against the second unit. Smart shot selection maximized his limited touches, taking only what the defense conceded. A quiet but effective shift that stabilized the offense during non-starter minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +74.2
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 15.9m -8.5
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Hesitancy to let it fly from deep allowed defenders to cheat off him and clog the driving lanes. Even with solid positional defense, his lack of offensive aggression stalled out multiple possessions. He needs to be a willing trigger-man to justify his minutes in this rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.8
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 15.1m -8.2
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Getting completely lost on defensive rotations led to a disastrously negative short stint. Opponents quickly identified his inexperience, exploiting his poor closeout angles for easy penetration. Flawless shooting on minimal volume couldn't mask the structural damage he caused to the team's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 35.3%
Net Rtg -48.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense -3.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total -3.2
Avg player in 8.0m -4.3
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

Executed his role perfectly during a brief cameo by setting hard screens and rolling with purpose. He held his ground in the post defensively, refusing to concede deep positioning. A reliable, mistake-free shift that provided exactly what the coaching staff needed.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -57.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 3.3m -1.8
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 2.3m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Barely saw the floor but managed to avoid any glaring mistakes in garbage time. His streak of high-efficiency scoring was paused simply due to a lack of opportunity. Maintained proper spacing and defensive positioning during his fleeting minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -93.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 2.3m -1.3
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Failed to register any meaningful statistics during a very brief appearance. A couple of missed defensive assignments in transition slightly dinged his overall rating. Essentially a cardio session at the end of the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -93.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.3m -1.2
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Austin Reaves 33.3m
36
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+9.8

Relentless rim pressure and elite shot-creation fueled a massive offensive spike. He consistently broke down the primary point-of-attack defender, generating high-value looks for himself and collapsing the defense for others. This dominant on-ball stretch single-handedly drove his elite overall rating.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 15/17 (88.2%)
Advanced
TS% 70.6%
USG% 39.7%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +24.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 33.3m -17.8
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Gabe Vincent 29.6m
18
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.8

Perimeter shot-making finally regressed to the mean in a massive way, punishing drop coverages effectively. Beyond the scoring surge, aggressive ball pressure and timely deflections completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm. He capitalized on every open catch-and-shoot opportunity to maximize his floor time.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -34.4
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 29.6m -15.9
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Rui Hachimura 29.3m
13
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.7

Scoring volume spiked above his recent averages, but his floor presence coincided with massive opponent runs. Defensive lapses in transition and a lack of secondary hustle plays dragged his net impact deeply into the red. His offensive output was ultimately overshadowed by giving up too many clean looks on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.1
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 29.3m -15.6
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Deandre Ayton 27.5m
6
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

A sudden drop in finishing efficiency snapped his hot streak around the rim. Failing to convert on standard interior touches tanked his offensive value, even though his rim deterrence metrics remained solid. The inability to punish mismatches inside ultimately defined a frustratingly hollow performance.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.6
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 27.5m -14.8
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jake LaRavia 20.8m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Defensive activity kept his head above water despite a sluggish perimeter showing. Strong closeouts and rotational awareness masked his inability to connect from deep. He found ways to contribute without the ball in his hands to salvage a neutral overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +4.1
Defense +5.3
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 20.8m -11.2
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Smothering perimeter defense set the tone for a highly efficient two-way showing. He consistently fought through screens to deny clean catch-and-shoot looks. Pairing that defensive intensity with decisive, in-rhythm shot selection resulted in a strong positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -37.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +7.3
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 23.5m -12.6
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Adou Thiero 19.5m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.4

Complete offensive invisibility and blown defensive assignments led to a cratered net rating. Opponents routinely targeted him in isolation, taking advantage of his slow lateral rotations. Being a total non-threat on the perimeter allowed the defense to play five-on-four, stalling out multiple possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.8
Raw total -3.9
Avg player in 19.5m -10.5
Impact -14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Maxi Kleber 15.5m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

Passing up open looks severely compromised the team's half-court spacing. While his positional defense remained fundamentally sound, his absolute refusal to look at the basket allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint. You simply cannot survive as an offensive zero in modern lineups.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.9%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 15.5m -8.3
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 13.8m
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

Limited offensive touches drastically reduced his usual scoring punch, but he found other ways to stay relevant. Vertical spacing and solid rim deterrence kept his overall impact slightly above water. He accepted a lower-usage role without sacrificing his defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -57.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 13.8m -7.3
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Poor shot selection and rushed releases derailed his offensive flow. Forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock resulted in empty trips that fueled opponent transition opportunities. Without his perimeter shot falling, his lack of defensive playmaking left him as a net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -47.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.2
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 13.8m -7.5
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Maximized a brief rotational stint by staying within his limitations and executing the scheme. Active hands at the point of attack generated positive defensive momentum. He took exactly what the defense gave him, resulting in a perfectly neutral, mistake-free shift.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 6.6m -3.6
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Drew Timme 6.6m
0
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.2

Operated strictly as a high-post hub during his short stint, facilitating well without looking for his own shot. A lack of defensive rebounding or rim protection kept his impact hovering right around zero. He kept the ball moving but failed to alter the geometry of the defense.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense +3.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 6.6m -3.6
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0