GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 43.4m
27
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
-9.3

A staggering volume of missed shots and back-breaking turnovers completely cratered his overall impact despite a heavy offensive load. The sheer number of empty possessions and forced isolation plays gave the opponent constant transition opportunities, severely damaging the team's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 11/28 (39.3%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.4m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 43.4m -20.7
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Derrick White 42.1m
29
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.4

Extraordinary two-way volume carried the team, as relentless perimeter creation and elite defensive playmaking drove a sky-high overall rating. Even though he surrendered value through missed threes and occasional turnovers, his constant ball pressure and ability to generate clean looks dictated the terms of the game.

Shooting
FG 11/26 (42.3%)
3PT 5/17 (29.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.1m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +5.5
Defense +7.8
Raw total +33.4
Avg player in 42.1m -20.0
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
4
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.5

A severe shooting slump and a rash of costly fouls neutralized his otherwise peskily effective defensive pressure. He generated solid point-of-attack disruption, but clanking wide-open spot-up looks and turning the ball over continually stalled the offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.2%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.2
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 28.5m -13.6
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Neemias Queta 23.8m
9
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.8

Elite interior physicality and relentless activity on the glass drove a massive positive score. He completely owned the paint during his minutes, converting high-percentage looks and anchoring a stifling defensive front that overwhelmed the opposition.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +4.1
Defense +5.6
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 23.8m -11.2
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Hugo González 12.7m
0
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.8

Offensive passivity and a failure to convert open looks dragged his impact into the negative during a quiet rotation stint. While he tried to compensate with hustle plays, his inability to bend the defense left the offense playing 4-on-5.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.2
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 12.7m -6.0
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.3

Incredible off-ball movement and elite hustle metrics defined a wildly successful shift, easily overcoming a few rookie mistakes. He maximized every second on the floor by diving for loose balls, making decisive cuts, and punishing closeouts with surgical precision.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +6.3
Defense +5.3
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 26.2m -12.5
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.6

A lack of shot-making rhythm and careless ball-handling severely hampered his overall effectiveness, as he repeatedly failed to punish drop coverage. While he competed harder than usual on the defensive end, the offense bogged down significantly whenever he attempted to initiate.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 25.5m -12.1
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Luka Garza 25.1m
11
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Lethal pick-and-pop execution stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point, though sloppy turnovers prevented a monster impact score. He capitalized on every defensive miscommunication, drilling trail threes while holding his ground adequately in drop coverage.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.2
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 25.1m -12.0
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jordan Walsh 12.7m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Offensive zeroes across the board sank his value despite a commendable effort in the hustle categories. His inability to finish plays or space the floor allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -39.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 12.7m -6.0
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S De'Aaron Fox 36.4m
21
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.4

Relentless downhill attacks drove a positive impact, though a high volume of turnovers prevented his score from reaching elite territory. His point-of-attack pressure on defense created transition opportunities, showcasing a two-way dominance that dictated the game's tempo despite the sloppy ball security.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +5.4
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 36.4m -17.3
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
13
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.4

A slew of costly turnovers and defensive fouls dragged his overall impact into the red despite solid raw scoring production. His defensive rotations and rebounding positioning kept him afloat, but sloppy ball security on the wing ultimately neutralized his value.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.3
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 34.9m -16.6
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Stephon Castle 26.6m
9
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.3

An abysmal shooting performance and sloppy ball-handling completely tanked his value, as forced drives and bricked jumpers killed offensive momentum. Even though he locked down his perimeter assignments to generate a strong defensive score, the sheer volume of wasted possessions was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/16 (18.8%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 24.7%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense -4.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.8
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 26.6m -12.6
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Harrison Barnes 26.3m
6
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.6

Careless passing and poor shot selection cratered his overall value, resulting in a negative total despite decent defensive metrics. While he maintained structural integrity on the defensive end with timely closeouts, his inability to protect the basketball made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 26.3m -12.6
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Luke Kornet 24.4m
5
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Supreme efficiency around the rim fueled a highly effective stint, though foul trouble slightly depressed his final impact score. He maximized his limited touches by converting easy drop-offs and setting sturdy screens that freed up the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 4.9%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 24.4m -11.6
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.0

Consistent rim pressure and opportunistic scoring in the mid-range anchored a sturdy positive impact, though defensive fouls limited his ceiling. He balanced his offensive aggression with disciplined weak-side rotations, making him a reliable two-way presence despite giving some points back at the line.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.1
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 28.2m -13.5
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
21
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.8

Utter dominance as a rim deterrent fueled an elite defensive rating and a massive overall impact score. Even with a few careless turnovers and forced perimeter shots, his sheer gravity in the paint and constant disruption of passing lanes completely warped the opponent's offensive geometry.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +25.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.8
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 26.4m -12.6
Impact +13.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
Dylan Harper 22.4m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.1

A catastrophic string of turnovers and forced decisions plummeted his impact score well below his baseline metrics. He struggled to find any rhythm against physical coverage, resulting in empty possessions that stalled the second unit's flow and fueled opponent fast breaks.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 22.4m -10.7
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Perfect execution in a micro-role kept his impact slightly above water. He capitalized on his lone pick-and-pop opportunity, providing exactly the spacing needed during his short stint without bleeding points on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense +3.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 6.6m -3.2
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Complete invisibility during his brief rotation minutes resulted in a quick negative impact driven by defensive lapses. He failed to generate any gravity on the perimeter or contribute to the glass, rendering his floor time entirely unproductive.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +30.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense -0.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 4.2m -2.0
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

A brief, erratic stint was defined by rushed offensive execution and a pair of empty trips down the floor. Unable to establish the physical tone he usually brings, his short run yielded a quick negative return before being pulled.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -41.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 3.6m -1.6
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0