GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 33.9m
30
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.6

Sustaining his elite scoring tear required ruthlessly hunting mismatches in isolation. His defensive rating spiked due to suffocating on-ball pressure that completely neutralized his primary assignment. Controlling the tempo of the game through sheer physical dominance on both ends drove his massive net impact.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 57.8%
USG% 38.3%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +9.8
Raw total +27.9
Avg player in 33.9m -18.3
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 5
10
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-6.5

A brutal shooting slump from beyond the arc severely damaged his offensive value, snapping a run of high-level scoring. While he competed hard defensively, his inability to punish drop coverage allowed the defense to pack the paint. The sheer volume of wasted perimeter possessions dragged down his net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.2%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +33.6
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 33.5m -18.1
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Derrick White 30.2m
13
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.5

Exceptional hustle and defensive instincts salvaged a night where his jumper was largely absent. He consistently blew up dribble hand-offs and generated deflections that sparked transition opportunities. Connective passing and off-ball movement kept the offense humming despite his own scoring struggles.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 30.2m -16.3
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 28.5m
17
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+15.6

Absolutely dominating the painted area paired a massive scoring surge with impenetrable rim protection. His ability to clean up the glass and alter shots completely dictated the terms of interior engagement. Overwhelming the opposing frontcourt with relentless physicality and vertical spacing drove his team-high impact score.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +10.0
Raw total +31.0
Avg player in 28.5m -15.4
Impact +15.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 5
TO 2
S Sam Hauser 27.6m
17
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.0

Blistering perimeter execution stretched the defense to its breaking point, significantly outperforming his recent baseline. However, defensive limitations and a lack of secondary playmaking kept his overall impact muted. Functioning purely as a release valve, he punished late closeouts with lethal precision.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 106.3%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 27.6m -14.9
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Barely breaking even, his perimeter shot creation was offset by defensive limitations at the point of attack. He managed to keep the offense afloat during key stretches by punishing defensive miscommunications. Ultimately, an inability to string together stops prevented a higher overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 22.5m -12.2
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 16.8m
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Active hands and disciplined closeouts kept him in the positive despite a quiet offensive showing. He embraced his role as a defensive stopper, navigating screens effectively to deny dribble penetration. His value came entirely from doing the dirty work that doesn't show up in the scoring column.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 16.8m -9.0
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Luka Garza 15.6m
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.2

Carving out deep post position allowed him to extend his streak of highly efficient interior play. He generated crucial second-chance opportunities through sheer effort on the offensive glass. Physical screening and a soft touch around the basket provided a reliable anchor for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +42.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.2
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 15.6m -8.5
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Defensive solidity wasn't enough to overcome a lack of offensive assertiveness. He operated too passively on the perimeter, failing to tilt the defense or create advantages off the catch. The resulting stagnant possessions slightly outweighed his positive contributions on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 14.4m -7.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

A surprising scoring bump couldn't mask his struggles with defensive positioning and rotational awareness. He frequently found himself out of position on the weak side, surrendering easy cutting lanes. This defensive bleed ultimately negated his opportunistic finishing around the rim.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 10.8m -5.8
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Looking completely disconnected from the offensive scheme, he failed to make an impact during a brief stint. While he showed flashes of energy on the glass, he was a non-factor in half-court sets. An inability to command defensive attention allowed opponents to freely double-team the primary ball handlers.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.4
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 3.9m -2.1
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Remaining a non-factor during garbage time minutes continued a trend of invisible offensive performances. He essentially served as a placeholder on the floor, neither creating advantages nor making glaring mistakes. The lack of any tangible statistical footprint resulted in a flat rating.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -80.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 2.4m -1.3
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Andrew Nembhard 32.9m
9
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
-11.4

Poor shot selection heavily penalized his net score despite his active playmaking efforts. He consistently settled for contested jumpers rather than collapsing the defense, stalling the team's momentum during crucial stretches. The sheer volume of empty possessions ultimately outweighed the value of his distribution.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.3%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 32.9m -17.8
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Pascal Siakam 32.7m
32
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.8

An overwhelming offensive surge fueled a massive positive impact, easily eclipsing his recent scoring baseline. He bullied his matchups in the half-court, generating high-quality looks that stabilized the offense. Aggressive downhill attacks forced defensive rotations all night, dictating the tempo whenever he touched the ball.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 67.7%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +23.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 32.7m -17.7
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Aaron Nesmith 28.4m
6
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.8

A severe regression in shot making tanked his overall value, as he failed to capitalize on open perimeter looks. The lack of scoring punch exposed his inability to generate advantages off the bounce against set defenses. Missed assignments on the wing only compounded the struggles of a frigid offensive night.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.8%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -42.3
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 28.4m -15.4
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Johnny Furphy 23.2m
10
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

Hidden mistakes dragged his overall impact into the red despite solid shooting efficiency. Costly live-ball turnovers and poorly timed fouls erased the value of his floor-spacing presence. He struggled to maintain discipline during transition sequences, giving points right back to the opponent.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.0
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 23.2m -12.6
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jay Huff 15.8m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Elite rim protection completely salvaged a night where his offensive production vanished. Even with his scoring cratering compared to recent outings, his imposing defensive presence deterred drives and altered the geometry of the paint. Anchoring the interior effectively during his short stint kept his net rating in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.0
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 15.8m -8.5
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
19
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.4

Relentlessly attacking mismatches allowed him to continue a streak of highly efficient finishing. Outstanding defensive versatility further boosted his rating, as he seamlessly switched across multiple positions to blow up pick-and-roll actions. His two-way physical dominance set a punishing tone for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -28.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.4
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 29.1m -15.7
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Ben Sheppard 20.7m
8
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.6

Perimeter defensive breakdowns and a barrage of missed deep shots severely limited his effectiveness. He struggled to stay in front of his assignments, bleeding points on one end while failing to convert catch-and-shoot opportunities on the other. This inability to find an offensive rhythm made him a liability in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.8
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 20.7m -11.2
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Potter 17.0m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Executing defensive rotations and battling on the interior kept his net rating slightly positive. While his outside shot refused to fall, he compensated by setting solid screens and executing the team's scheme flawlessly. Positional awareness prevented easy baskets at the rim when the primary defense broke down.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 17.0m -9.2
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.7

Relentless ball pressure and loose-ball recoveries kept his impact above water despite a sharp decline in scoring. He manufactured extra possessions through sheer grit, disrupting the opponent's offensive flow at the point of attack. Those hustle plays masked an otherwise disjointed shooting performance.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -61.3
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +5.3
Defense +3.1
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 14.0m -7.6
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

A complete offensive disappearing act snapped a strong streak of efficient performances. He failed to establish any interior position, rendering him invisible in the pick-and-roll game. Without his usual rim-running gravity, the floor spacing suffered significantly during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 9.3m -5.0
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

A sudden drop in offensive aggression snapped his recent streak of efficient scoring. He struggled to navigate screens defensively, giving up crucial driving lanes that negated his minor contributions on the other end. The lack of downhill pressure made him far too easy to guard on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -45.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.4
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 6.4m -3.4
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Providing a brief but sturdy defensive anchor defined his limited rotation minutes. He effectively walled off the paint and contested interior looks without committing costly fouls. Positional discipline forced opponents into low-percentage floaters rather than easy layups.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.9
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 6.3m -3.4
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Kam Jones 4.2m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Failing to make any meaningful imprint on the game resulted in a negative rating during a brief, empty stint. He looked hesitant to attack closeouts, completely stalling the offensive flow when the ball swung his way. This lack of aggression was a stark contrast to his recent productive outings.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +58.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense -0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 4.2m -2.3
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1