GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 33.2m
31
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.1

Aggressive downhill drives and elite perimeter defense generated a massive two-way footprint. Even with a high volume of missed jumpers, his ability to blow up pick-and-rolls and secure contested rebounds overwhelmed the opposition.

Shooting
FG 11/25 (44.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 38.8%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +4.5
Defense +7.2
Raw total +28.7
Avg player in 33.2m -14.6
Impact +14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
11
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.1

Brick-heavy perimeter shooting and stalled half-court sets severely damaged his overall impact. While he competed hard on the defensive end, the inability to knock down open catch-and-shoot looks derailed the offense during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 33.0m -14.5
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Derrick White 31.5m
19
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.7

Breaking out of a recent scoring slump, timely perimeter shot-making and elite point-of-attack defense drove a highly positive performance. He consistently disrupted passing lanes, turning defensive stops into transition scoring opportunities.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.8
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 31.5m -13.8
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Neemias Queta 23.4m
8
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

Despite highly efficient interior finishing, defensive miscommunications in drop coverage dragged his net score slightly into the red. Opposing guards consistently exploited his positioning in the pick-and-roll, negating his solid work on the offensive glass.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -6.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 23.4m -10.2
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Josh Minott 8.6m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

A sharp decline in offensive involvement limited his overall influence, though he remained disciplined on the defensive end. He stayed attached to shooters during his brief stint, preventing any bleeding despite the lack of scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -38.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 8.6m -3.7
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Relentless energy on the glass and phenomenal defensive switchability kept his impact neutral despite minimal scoring volume. He embraced a pure glue-guy role, sacrificing his own touches to secure extra possessions and lock down the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg +27.3
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +5.3
Defense +6.9
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 36.8m -16.1
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Luka Garza 24.5m
6
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.3

Flawless shot selection and dominant defensive rebounding anchored a surprisingly massive impact score. By refusing to force bad shots and instead focusing on screening and securing the paint, he perfectly complemented the primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 4.6%
Net Rtg +19.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.2
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 24.5m -10.7
Impact +13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Sam Hauser 19.9m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Missing a slew of normally automatic catch-and-shoot threes tanked his offensive rating. He tried to compensate with active closeouts and solid team defense, but the wasted spacing opportunities were too costly.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 19.9m -8.8
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.0

A heavy reliance on contested long-range jumpers torpedoed his offensive efficiency and overall value. Furthermore, a complete lack of rebounding and poor defensive resistance allowed opponents to feast when he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.1
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 17.4m -7.7
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

High-motor hustle plays and disciplined defensive rotations salvaged a quiet shooting night. He didn't demand the ball, instead focusing on spacing the floor and making quick secondary rotations to cover for teammates.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +31.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.8
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 11.8m -5.2
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 37.3m
25
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.4

Elite shot selection and perimeter spacing fueled a massive box score impact, as he consistently punished mismatches on the outside. The steady scoring rhythm anchored the offense, while his defensive rotations quietly disrupted passing lanes to seal a highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +20.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 37.3m -16.3
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

A heavy volume of missed jumpers dragged down his offensive efficiency, but strong defensive positioning kept his overall impact positive. His willingness to crash the glass generated crucial extra possessions, offsetting his struggles finishing in traffic.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 36.8m -16.2
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Andrew Nembhard 35.8m
20
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.9

Defensive lapses at the point of attack severely undercut a solid playmaking performance. While he orchestrated the half-court offense well, getting repeatedly beaten off the dribble forced emergency rotations that bled points on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.7
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 35.8m -15.8
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Ethan Thompson 33.6m
13
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.3

High-energy defensive closeouts and timely hustle plays kept his head above water despite erratic perimeter shooting. He forced several key deflections during transition sequences, ensuring his two-way activity compensated for the wasted offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.3
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 33.6m -14.8
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jay Huff 25.1m
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.6

A severe drop-off in offensive execution tanked his overall value, as he settled for contested perimeter shots instead of working inside. Even though his rim protection metrics remained solid, the inability to capitalize on open looks completely stalled the second-unit offense.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense -4.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 25.1m -11.1
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
3
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
0.0

A perfectly neutral outing driven by low-usage floor spacing and disciplined defensive rotations. He rarely forced the issue offensively, instead relying on active closeouts and fundamental box-outs to maintain balance during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 23.1m -10.2
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.7

Relentless rim pressure and drawing fouls kept his offensive efficiency high during a short burst off the bench. Active hands in the passing lanes further boosted his value, making him a disruptive two-way spark plug.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -27.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 15.9m -6.9
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

Snapping a highly efficient four-game stretch, poor shot selection from beyond the arc cratered his offensive impact. He provided decent weak-side help defense, but forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock ruined the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -25.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 15.3m -6.7
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.0

Complete offensive invisibility and poor pick-and-roll coverage led to a heavily negative rating. Failing to secure defensive rebounds against smaller matchups allowed second-chance opportunities that punished the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.6%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 12.2m -5.3
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Barely saw the floor, resulting in a slightly negative impact due to a lack of counting stats during his brief stint. The offense couldn't utilize his usual elite finishing ability in such a limited window.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +160.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.1
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 2.4m -1.2
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Maximized a microscopic stint by immediately drawing contact and converting at the line. His quick burst of scoring efficiency in garbage time artificially inflated his per-minute impact metrics.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.0m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 1.0m -0.4
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

A single missed defensive rotation during a late-game cameo accounted for the slight negative score. There simply wasn't enough time to establish any offensive rhythm or defensive presence.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 0.7m -0.3
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kam Jones 0.7m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Capitalized on a late-game breakdown to score a quick bucket, instantly boosting his advanced metrics in less than a minute of action. The perfect conversion rate in garbage time drove the positive rating.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.7m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 0.7m -0.4
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0