GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 34.2m
33
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.6

A massive volume-scoring effort masked underlying inefficiencies that severely damaged his overall impact score. Forcing contested looks late in the shot clock and surrendering easy transition opportunities on the other end resulted in a surprisingly steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 14/29 (48.3%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 54.4%
USG% 46.8%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 34.2m -19.8
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 7
S Derrick White 34.2m
17
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.8

Elite perimeter defense and shot-contest metrics were ultimately undone by a brutal volume-shooting slump. Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers short-circuited multiple offensive possessions, dragging his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 3/12 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.7%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +7.8
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 34.2m -19.8
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
17
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.0

Overcame a frigid night from beyond the arc by applying relentless point-of-attack pressure on the defensive end. His ability to disrupt opposing ball-handlers and push the pace in transition salvaged a highly positive overall performance.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.9
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 33.7m -19.5
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sam Hauser 29.7m
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.6

An uncharacteristically quiet night from the perimeter completely neutralized his usual offensive gravity, cratering his overall impact. Even though he executed his defensive assignments well, the inability to punish defensive closeouts left his team playing from behind during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 29.7m -17.2
Impact -10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Neemias Queta 24.4m
6
pts
20
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.2

Utterly dominated the interior by vacuuming up available misses, controlling the possession battle single-handedly. This sheer physical imposition in the paint drove a massive positive rating, easily offsetting a dip in his usual finishing efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -41.4
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.6
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 24.4m -14.2
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.7

Highly efficient shot creation fueled a strong box score rating, as he consistently exploited defensive mismatches in isolation. However, a lack of secondary hustle plays and minimal defensive resistance kept his overall net impact relatively flat.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 25.7m -14.9
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game offensively, looking hesitant when attacking closeouts. While he provided adequate defensive rotations, his inability to threaten the defense allowed opponents to sag off and clog the driving lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +29.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.9
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 20.8m -12.1
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Luka Garza 19.4m
11
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.6

Flawless offensive execution and relentless rim-running translated into a spectacular net positive during his limited minutes. He continued a scorching streak of efficiency by capitalizing on every dump-off pass and generating crucial extra possessions through pure effort.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 110.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +5.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 19.4m -11.1
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 13.8m
1
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

Failed to make a tangible mark on the offensive end, completely disappearing from the scoring flow during his shifts. The lack of floor-spacing gravity severely hampered unit cohesion, resulting in a steep negative rating despite adequate effort on the wings.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.5
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 13.8m -7.9
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Logged only a brief cameo appearance that failed to move the needle in any meaningful direction. His short stint was marred by slight defensive miscommunications that kept his overall impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +132.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense +0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 4.1m -2.4
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Peyton Watson 37.3m
30
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.2

Searing perimeter efficiency drove a massive box score impact, as he consistently punished defensive closeouts from beyond the arc. His breakout scoring night was perfectly complemented by high-level weakside defensive rotations, culminating in a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 6/7 (85.7%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +5.3
Defense +6.0
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 37.3m -21.5
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S Jamal Murray 36.7m
22
pts
8
reb
17
ast
Impact
+4.9

Elite offensive orchestration completely dictated the flow of the game, generating high-quality looks for teammates at a staggering rate. Even with his own scoring volume dipping below recent trends, his masterful manipulation of pick-and-roll coverages cemented a strong positive rating.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +22.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 36.7m -21.3
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Christian Braun 29.6m
5
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

A sharp drop in offensive aggressiveness severely hampered his overall rating despite maintaining his usual point-of-attack defensive intensity. The stark negative total suggests his minutes were plagued by poor spacing and stalled possessions, neutralizing his individual stops.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 29.6m -17.2
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S DaRon Holmes II 13.4m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Broke out of a recent scoreless slump by stretching the floor, though his overall offensive efficiency remained spotty. The bulk of his positive value stemmed from rim deterrence during his rotation minutes, anchoring the paint effectively when called upon.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 13.4m -7.8
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Spencer Jones 9.1m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Provided a marginal positive impact during his brief stint primarily through active defensive rotations rather than offensive creation. His floor time was defined by staying out of the way on offense while contributing solid hustle metrics to keep the second unit afloat.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.3
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 9.1m -5.3
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Capitalized on spot-up opportunities to provide a much-needed scoring punch off the wing. Surprisingly, it was his disciplined closeouts and perimeter containment that anchored his positive value, showing a balanced effort on both ends.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.7
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 26.1m -15.1
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Zeke Nnaji 24.9m
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.4

Overcame a rough shooting night by absolutely dominating the margins with elite hustle and second-chance generation. His relentless energy on the offensive glass and switchability on the perimeter defined a highly impactful rotation stint.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 49.7%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +7.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 24.9m -14.5
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
Aaron Gordon 23.4m
12
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

Physical interior defense and timely weakside help kept his overall impact in the green. However, a handful of forced attempts around the basket limited his offensive efficiency, preventing a higher overall grade.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.6
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 23.4m -13.6
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Struggled to string together positive momentum during his shifts, resulting in a slightly negative overall grade. While he found some success operating in the mid-range, defensive lapses against quicker guards ultimately offset his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 20.5m -11.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 19.0m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Snapped a streak of highly efficient shooting nights with a disjointed offensive showing that dragged down his overall rating. While he still generated value through relentless loose-ball recoveries and perimeter pressure, the lack of scoring gravity stalled the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -11.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.1
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 19.0m -11.1
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0