GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 38.0m
18
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.4

Uncharacteristic live-ball turnovers and sloppy entry passes completely undermined a night of otherwise stellar defensive activity. He was an absolute terror as a help-side shot blocker, yet gave those possessions right back with careless decisions in transition. A late-game sequence of forced passes directly into the passing lanes sank his overall metric.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.7
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 38.0m -23.3
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jaylen Brown 36.5m
25
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.7

Forcing the issue into crowded paint coverage resulted in a barrage of clanked shots and momentum-killing offensive fouls. While his aggressive on-ball defense generated crucial stops, his tunnel vision on drives completely derailed the team's offensive flow. A brutal stretch of isolation plays in the third quarter perfectly encapsulated his negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg +24.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 36.5m -22.5
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Sam Hauser 31.6m
19
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.9

Lethal off-ball movement and lightning-quick releases against late contests drove a massive surge in offensive efficiency. He compounded this scoring gravity by executing flawless defensive rotations, consistently stunting and recovering to take away driving lanes. Punishing the defense for over-helping on drives defined his highly impactful performance.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 95.0%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +34.1
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.4
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 31.6m -19.5
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
27
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+9.6

Slicing through drop coverage with elite pace and precision shooting yielded a stratospheric offensive impact. He relentlessly punished defenders going under screens, orchestrating a masterclass in pick-and-roll navigation. This relentless scoring pressure, combined with pesky point-of-attack defense, made him the undisputed engine of the game.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +23.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +27.9
Avg player in 29.7m -18.3
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 27.2m
10
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.4

Absolute dominance as a drop-coverage anchor suffocated the opposition's interior attack and spiked his defensive rating. He paired this rim protection with punishing offensive rebounds, generating crucial second-chance opportunities in heavy traffic. His ability to consistently alter floaters and layups dictated the terms of engagement in the paint.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.7
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 27.2m -16.7
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.3

A complete lack of resistance at the point of attack allowed straight-line drives that negated his smooth perimeter shot-making. While he easily created separation for his own offense, his tendency to die on screens compromised the entire defensive shell. Trading baskets rather than getting stops kept his overall impact firmly in the red.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense 0.0
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 26.3m -16.2
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 20.7m
6
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Heavy feet in pick-and-roll coverage allowed opposing guards to walk into uncontested pull-ups, cratering his defensive rating. He compounded these struggles by forcing contested hooks in the post rather than kicking out to open shooters. Being repeatedly hunted in space during the second half defined a highly detrimental stint.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.4
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 20.7m -12.8
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Chronic miscommunications on defensive switches left shooters wide open and severely damaged his net impact. Although he capitalized on a few back-door cuts, his inability to navigate off-ball screens made him a frequent target for opposing sets. Getting caught ball-watching on the weak side erased any minor offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -32.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 18.5m -11.4
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 11.6m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.2

A catastrophic string of moving screens and bad reach-in fouls hemorrhaged value during his limited time on the floor. He offered zero offensive gravity, allowing his defender to freely roam and clog the driving lanes for teammates. Completely out of sync with the offensive flow, his minutes were a massive net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.2%
Net Rtg -37.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 11.6m -7.0
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
17
pts
2
reb
13
ast
Impact
-5.6

A disastrous assist-to-turnover ratio completely tanked his overall rating despite heavy playmaking volume. Careless passing sequences against the blitz directly fueled opponent fast breaks, erasing any value generated by his perimeter shot-making. He struggled mightily to organize the offense during crucial fourth-quarter possessions, resulting in a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -31.1
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.3
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 34.8m -21.4
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Ja'Kobe Walter 31.4m
19
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Blistering perimeter execution against closeouts drove a massive offensive spike compared to his recent baseline. However, his overall impact was heavily muted by careless live-ball turnovers in transition that erased his scoring margins. Navigating screens defensively remains a work in progress, though his active hands in the passing lanes partially salvaged his defensive rating.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 79.2%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 31.4m -19.3
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S RJ Barrett 27.9m
19
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.8

Forced drives into heavy traffic and contested mid-range pull-ups severely capped his overall effectiveness. While the raw production looks solid, a lack of secondary hustle plays and poor shot selection in the half-court drained his net value. His inability to finish through contact against rim protectors defined a frustrating outing that barely broke even.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg -20.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.6
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 27.9m -17.2
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.8

Elite rim-running and decisive cuts against Boston's frontline anchored a highly efficient offensive showing. His robust positive impact was further cemented by relentless activity on the offensive glass and disciplined verticality in the paint. He consistently punished defensive switches during a pivotal second-quarter run to keep his net rating exceptionally high.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.8%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 24.9m -15.3
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Despite a sharp regression in his usual scoring rhythm, relentless off-ball activity kept his overall impact in the green. He anchored the second unit's defensive shell by blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs on the perimeter. Gritty screen-setting and loose-ball recoveries perfectly masked his shooting struggles.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -45.4
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.9
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 21.1m -13.0
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 24.0m
13
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.5

Getting completely lost on back-door cuts and dying on screens resulted in a negative defensive impact that dragged down his playmaking gains. He expertly manipulated the pick-and-roll to generate open looks for teammates, but gave those points right back on the other end. A specific third-quarter stretch of blown assignments highlighted his struggles at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.1
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 24.0m -14.8
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Gradey Dick 23.6m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

Opposing guards relentlessly targeted him in isolation, turning him into a defensive liability that torpedoed his overall score. Even though he found a better offensive rhythm coming off pin-down screens, his slow lateral slides gave up too many straight-line drives. The defensive bleeding far outweighed his improved shooting stroke.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +33.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.7
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 23.6m -14.5
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
0.0

Perfect execution on limited touches was entirely neutralized by a string of costly moving screens and off-ball fouls. He provided a brief spark with energetic weak-side rotations, but couldn't stay on the floor long enough to build momentum. His inability to defend without fouling against quicker forwards erased his offensive efficiency, leaving his net impact completely flat.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 19.4m -12.0
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.5

Errant shot selection from the perimeter offset the value of his high-energy closeouts and loose-ball dives. He brought undeniable intensity to the perimeter defense, yet short-circuited multiple possessions by forcing contested early-clock jumpers. His chaotic energy was a double-edged sword that ultimately yielded a slightly negative return.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.6
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 15.4m -9.4
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

A passive approach on the offensive end rendered him largely invisible during his brief rotation minutes. He managed to provide solid weak-side rim deterrence, but a couple of sloppy transition fouls kept his net impact slightly submerged. Hesitating on open catch-and-shoot opportunities disrupted the unit's spacing and stalled out possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +50.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.4
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 11.6m -7.2
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Rushing his attempts during a brief cameo led to empty possessions and a quick hook from the coaching staff. He failed to register any meaningful defensive resistance, allowing easy dribble penetration on consecutive trips down the floor. A total lack of rhythm defined this highly forgettable stint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 5.8m -3.6
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0