GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 35.7m
33
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+23.5

An absolute masterclass in two-way dominance, fueled by a nuclear shooting display from beyond the arc. He completely shattered his recent scoring averages by hunting and draining contested perimeter looks, breaking the opposing defensive scheme entirely. Coupling that offensive explosion with suffocating point-of-attack defense made him the undisputed MVP of the floor.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 9/14 (64.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.0%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +35.5
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +26.8
Hustle +6.8
Defense +11.8
Raw total +45.4
Avg player in 35.7m -21.9
Impact +23.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 28.0%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
S Jaylen Brown 34.7m
30
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.1

Efficient isolation scoring and physical point-of-attack defense drove a highly productive two-way performance. He consistently punished mismatches in the midrange, forcing the defense into uncomfortable rotations. While a few sloppy live-ball turnovers slightly dampened his net rating, his sheer scoring gravity dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 65.7%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.9
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 34.7m -21.4
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
9
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.1

A sudden freeze in his perimeter touch severely handicapped his offensive utility, as he failed to convert on a barrage of deep attempts. This sharp decline from his recent scoring tear bogged down the second unit's spacing. Even a surprisingly robust defensive effort couldn't fully offset the damage caused by those empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.7
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 26.9m -16.5
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Neemias Queta 25.0m
10
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.1

Continuing a stellar streak of high-percentage finishing, he dominated the painted area with brutal efficiency. His vertical spacing collapsed the defense, while his stout rim protection deterred drivers on the other end. This seamless execution of his traditional big-man duties resulted in a rock-solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +3.3
Defense +6.5
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 25.0m -15.4
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jordan Walsh 21.6m
6
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Smothering perimeter defense and excellent weak-side rotations completely salvaged a rough offensive outing. Bricking every attempt from beyond the arc normally spells disaster for a role player's impact score. Instead, his relentless ability to blow up passing lanes kept his overall value firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +9.2
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 21.6m -13.3
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
10
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

A surprising surge in offensive aggression yielded a massive scoring bump compared to his usual quiet baseline. He brought phenomenal energy to the defensive end, yet his overall impact slipped into the negative due to poorly timed fouls and disjointed transitional play. The raw production was there, but the execution lacked polish during crucial swing moments.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +31.9
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +5.0
Defense +6.0
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 29.4m -18.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.9

Efficient shot-making masked a performance that actively hurt the team's overall flow. Bleeding points on the defensive end and failing to navigate screens allowed opponents to consistently target him in isolation. The points he efficiently generated were quickly erased by his inability to generate stops or secure loose balls.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +19.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 28.9m -17.7
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Sam Hauser 25.2m
15
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.8

Lethal precision from the perimeter punished the defense every time they lost track of him in transition. Operating as an elite release valve, his near-perfect shooting stretched the floor to its breaking point. However, minor struggles containing dribble penetration kept his overall net rating from reaching the elite tier his shooting suggested.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +21.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.7
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 25.2m -15.6
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.1

Despite seeing his offensive volume vanish in a limited rotation role, he maximized his stint through pure energy. High-level defensive rotations and immediate hustle plays generated extra possessions during a crucial short stretch. He proved capable of swinging the momentum without needing a single play called for him.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +3.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 6.8m -4.3
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Completely invisible during a brief rotation stint, failing to attempt a single shot or generate any offensive gravity. His inability to impact the game allowed the opposition to essentially ignore him and overload the strong side. The lineup hemorrhaged points during his minutes as a direct result of playing four-on-five offensively.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -98.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 5.8m -3.5
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
14
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-13.1

Despite solid defensive rotations and active hustle metrics keeping his peripheral numbers afloat, severe offensive inefficiency cratered his overall impact. Clanking a high volume of attempts disrupted the team's spacing and stalled out half-court sets. His inability to find the mark from deep allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -27.6
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.6
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 36.3m -22.4
Impact -13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 56.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Bam Adebayo 36.1m
16
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.1

A stark disconnect between his baseline box score contributions and his actual on-court value defined this outing. While he generated decent hustle numbers, a string of empty offensive possessions and poor finishing around the rim dragged his net impact into the red. Opponents capitalized on his offensive lulls to generate momentum in transition.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 36.1m -22.2
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
17
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.1

Catching fire from the perimeter resulted in a massive offensive surge compared to his recent baseline, keeping the offense afloat for long stretches. However, his overall impact flatlined near zero due to persistent struggles containing his man at the point of attack. The points he generated from deep were almost entirely given back through defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +5.5
Defense -0.7
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 35.6m -22.0
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Norman Powell 34.4m
18
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-15.1

Disastrous shot selection from beyond the arc acted as an anchor on his overall net rating. Forcing contested perimeter looks rather than attacking the rim resulted in long rebounds that fueled opponent fast breaks. The sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions completely nullified his otherwise passable defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 7/21 (33.3%)
3PT 1/11 (9.1%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -14.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.8
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 34.4m -21.3
Impact -15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kel'el Ware 27.6m
24
pts
14
reb
2
ast
Impact
+21.3

An absolute revelation as a floor-spacing big, he completely broke the defense by draining nearly every perimeter look he took. This massive scoring spike paired beautifully with elite rim-deterrence to swing the game entirely in his team's favor. His ability to pull opposing centers out of the paint unlocked driving lanes for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 6/7 (85.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.2%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +28.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +7.6
Raw total +38.2
Avg player in 27.6m -16.9
Impact +21.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
12
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.0

Operating strictly as a catch-and-shoot threat yielded a nice scoring bump, but his inability to convert anything inside the arc severely limited his utility. Missing heavily contested midrange looks stalled out multiple half-court sets and handed momentum to the opposition. Consequently, his net impact plummeted despite a respectable effort in the hustle department.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 30.5m -18.7
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dru Smith 21.1m
7
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.6

Relentless ball pressure and elite hustle metrics nearly salvaged a nightmarish shooting performance. He bricked his way through offensive sets, missing every perimeter look and killing the floor spacing. Yet, his ability to blow up pick-and-rolls on the other end prevented his overall impact from completely cratering.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.7%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -35.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +8.8
Defense +5.8
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 21.1m -13.0
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

A relatively quiet stint saw him execute within the flow of the offense without forcing bad shots. Minor defensive miscommunications and a lack of forceful rim protection kept his net rating slightly in the red. He essentially served as a placeholder, neither elevating the unit nor actively harming it.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 16.5m -10.1
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.4

Maximized a microscopic stint on the floor by immediately burying a perimeter look. This instant injection of spacing provided a quick jolt to the lineup's offensive rating. It was a flawless, albeit incredibly brief, execution of his specialized role.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +300.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 0.9m -0.6
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Logged less than a minute of garbage-time action, merely acting as a warm body to close out the clock. He recorded no meaningful statistical events on either side of the ball. The fractional negative impact simply reflects the random noise of a single empty possession.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +300.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.9m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 0.9m -0.6
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0