GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 37.0m
10
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.8

Elite defensive anticipation and relentless hustle plays completely salvaged a night where his jumper was entirely broken. Despite throwing up brick after brick from the perimeter, his ability to blow up pick-and-rolls and generate deflections kept his overall impact in the green. He proved he can dictate a game's outcome without scoring the basketball.

Shooting
FG 3/15 (20.0%)
3PT 1/10 (10.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.6%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +11.8
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 37.0m -18.3
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jaylen Brown 34.6m
14
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-16.9

An atrocious display of shot selection and forced isolation attempts completely torpedoed Boston's offensive efficiency. Clanking mid-range pull-ups and forcing drives into heavy traffic negated any minor positive contributions he made on the glass. This was a severe regression from his recent dominant scoring tear, dragging the entire starting unit down with him.

Shooting
FG 6/24 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.1%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 34.6m -17.1
Impact -16.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
21
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.8

Aggressive perimeter shot-hunting stretched the opposing defense past its breaking point. Beyond the deep range, he provided surprisingly stout point-of-attack defense against bigger guards, fighting over screens to disrupt the offensive flow. His constant motion off the ball made him a nightmare to track in transition.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.2%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 31.2m -15.5
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Neemias Queta 24.6m
13
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+17.1

Utter dominance in the painted area fueled a massive positive impact, as he bullied his matchups for high-percentage finishes. His rim protection and relentless activity on the offensive glass created a massive possession advantage for Boston. He continues to prove he can anchor the interior with brutal efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.1
Raw total +29.2
Avg player in 24.6m -12.1
Impact +17.1
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Sam Hauser 20.6m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Active hands in passing lanes and excellent floor spacing kept his peripheral metrics looking strong. However, missing a handful of clean catch-and-shoot looks he typically buries kept his overall net rating slightly in the red. He executed his role properly but lacked the final layer of shot-making execution.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 20.6m -10.2
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
27
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.1

A spectacular barrage of contested three-pointers completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme. He hunted his shot with supreme confidence, using subtle hesitations to create massive separation on the perimeter. This lethal outside gravity opened up driving lanes for the rest of the roster all night long.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 8/14 (57.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 27.2m -13.4
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Luka Garza 23.4m
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.1

Capitalizing on every interior touch allowed him to maximize his value in a condensed role. He supplemented his flawless finishing with excellent verticality at the rim, deterring drives and anchoring the second-unit defense. It was a clinic in playing within a system and dominating the physical margins.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.7
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 23.4m -11.6
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 18.4m
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Hesitancy to attack closeouts limited his offensive utility, rendering him mostly a spectator on that end of the floor. While his defensive length bothered opposing wings, he struggled to navigate off-ball screens, leading to a slightly negative overall stint. He needs to assert himself more to warrant heavier rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 18.4m -9.0
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.5

Crashing the glass with reckless abandon allowed him to post a positive impact despite a very rough shooting performance. He missed several wide-open perimeter looks but made up for it by extending possessions and keeping the ball moving. His raw energy compensated for a lack of offensive polish.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.1
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 12.3m -6.1
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

A failure to contain dribble penetration on the perimeter dragged down his brief appearance. He managed to knock down a spot-up look, but his slow lateral footwork made him an easy target in isolation sets. The defensive bleeding forced the coaching staff to look elsewhere.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.3
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 10.7m -5.2
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
15
pts
15
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.5

Surprisingly stout interior positioning anchored a highly positive defensive rating for the veteran big man. While his finishing around the rim was somewhat erratic, stepping out to stretch the floor from deep kept the offensive spacing intact. His ability to dictate the glass limited second-chance opportunities for the opponent.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +7.8
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 36.4m -18.0
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Matas Buzelis 31.0m
26
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.3

Elite shot selection and off-ball movement fueled a massive offensive spike well above his recent baseline. He paired this scoring efficiency with tremendous energy on the margins, generating immense value through hustle plays alone. The rookie's two-way activity dictated the tempo whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +19.7
Hustle +4.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 31.0m -15.3
Impact +13.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Isaac Okoro 24.9m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.1

An abysmal perimeter shooting display completely derailed his overall impact. Despite offering solid point-of-attack resistance and positive hustle plays, bricking nearly every look from deep killed Chicago's spacing. He lacked his usual offensive rhythm, falling well short of his recent efficient scoring stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.7%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 24.9m -12.4
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tre Jones 23.4m
10
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.4

Passive offensive stretches limited his overall influence despite maintaining his streak of highly efficient shooting. He managed the game well enough, but a lack of disruptive defensive plays or high-leverage hustle moments left his net rating slightly in the red. The offense needed him to hunt his own shot more aggressively.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 23.4m -11.6
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kevin Huerter 19.6m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

A complete inability to find the range from beyond the arc neutralized his primary value to the offense. Even though his defensive rotations were surprisingly crisp, the lack of perimeter gravity bogged down half-court sets. He simply couldn't replicate the efficient scoring punch he had been providing over the last week.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 19.6m -9.7
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Ayo Dosunmu 27.8m
15
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.7

Transition pushes and timely perimeter makes kept his offensive metrics looking healthy. However, his net impact hovered near neutral due to occasional defensive miscommunications and giving up driving lanes. He provided a steadying presence in the backcourt without completely tilting the game in either direction.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 27.8m -13.8
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Coby White 25.4m
5
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-17.7

Forced looks and a broken perimeter stroke resulted in a disastrous overall rating. Without his usual scoring rhythm to fall back on, his defensive lapses at the point of attack became glaringly obvious. The offense consistently stalled out during his shifts as he struggled to create separation.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense -5.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.9
Raw total -5.1
Avg player in 25.4m -12.6
Impact -17.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.5

High-energy closeouts and disciplined weak-side rotations drove a surprisingly strong defensive rating in limited action. He maximized his offensive touches by strictly taking high-value perimeter looks, punishing the defense for leaving him open. It was a perfect sparkplug performance that capitalized on every second of playing time.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.6
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 13.2m -6.4
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jevon Carter 11.8m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers prevented him from establishing any real offensive rhythm. He applied his trademark ball pressure at the top of the key, but it wasn't enough to offset the empty possessions on the other end. The second unit struggled to find flow while he was initiating the offense.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 11.8m -5.8
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.4

A completely invisible offensive stint tanked his value during his limited minutes on the floor. He failed to establish any physical presence in the paint, allowing opponents to exploit his defensive rotations. The lack of aggression was a sharp departure from his recent efficient outings.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg -22.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 11.7m -5.8
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

His ongoing shooting slump continued to plague his floor spacing, rendering him an offensive liability. While he offered mild resistance on the wing, his hesitancy to attack closeouts allowed the defense to completely ignore him. The coaching staff had to pull him early due to his inability to generate any positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -29.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 10.1m -5.0
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

A brief cameo yielded a perfectly neutral impact, highlighted only by a single capitalized spot-up opportunity. He simply wasn't on the floor long enough to accumulate any meaningful defensive or hustle metrics. The coaching staff used him strictly as a momentary placeholder to buy rest for the primary rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 4.9m -2.4
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0