GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 36.2m
20
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.4

Suffocating on-ball pressure completely neutralized his primary matchup and set a physical tone for the perimeter defense. He leveraged his strength perfectly on drives, bullying smaller defenders to collapse the paint and create high-value kickouts.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +2.7
Defense +10.9
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 36.2m -15.8
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
23
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.9

Deep drop coverage was repeatedly punished by his quick-trigger pull-up shooting in pick-and-roll situations. His relentless pace in transition kept the opponent scrambling and unable to set their half-court defense.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 34.7m -15.1
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Derrick White 34.5m
18
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.8

Defensive miscommunications and mistimed gambles in the passing lanes led to easy back-door scores, dragging his total impact into the red. Even with active hands, giving up straight-line drives compromised the rim protection.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +5.0
Defense +4.4
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 34.5m -15.1
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 9
S Sam Hauser 29.7m
11
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.1

Constant off-ball motion warped the opposing defensive shell, opening up backdoor cuts and driving lanes for teammates. His surprisingly stout positional defense and quick closeouts prevented spot-up shooters from finding any rhythm.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +5.5
Defense +5.1
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 29.7m -13.0
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Neemias Queta 22.1m
4
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.0

Operated effectively as an offensive hub from the high post, picking apart defensive coverages with sharp interior passing. While his own scoring touch was off, his ability to execute dribble hand-offs kept the offensive engine humming.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.9
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 22.1m -9.6
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
12
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Showcased rare defensive engagement by fighting through multiple screens and staying attached to movement shooters. This commitment to trailing plays negated his usual defensive shortcomings and stabilized the backcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.1
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 26.4m -11.5
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

Walled off the paint effectively by maintaining verticality against driving guards. His solid screen-setting created crucial separation for ball-handlers, though a few fumbled catches in traffic limited his overall upside.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.1%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.0
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 25.9m -11.3
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.0

Struggled to navigate complex screening actions, frequently getting caught on picks and forcing teammates into emergency switches. A lack of assertiveness on the offensive end made him easy to ignore in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg +61.4
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 14.2m -6.1
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Targeted relentlessly in isolation, his inability to slide his feet against quicker wings bled points on the defensive end. While he crashed the glass hard, the defensive bleeding outweighed his rebounding contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -47.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense -1.0
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 13.0m -5.7
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Rushed decisions and a lack of spatial awareness marred a very brief appearance on the floor. He repeatedly clogged driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers, short-circuiting the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 3.3m -1.5
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 36.2m
18
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.2

Relentless energy on the margins drove a massive positive impact, specifically through second-chance generation and loose-ball recoveries. He consistently beat his man to the spot in transition, turning defensive stops into immediate offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +12.5
Defense +6.5
Raw total +30.9
Avg player in 36.2m -15.7
Impact +15.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Shaedon Sharpe 34.3m
9
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.2

Poor shot selection and a heavy diet of contested jumpers tanked his overall value. Forcing the issue against set defenses led to long rebounds that repeatedly ignited the opponent's transition attack.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 34.3m -15.0
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Donovan Clingan 28.3m
9
pts
15
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.6

Anchored the interior with elite rim deterrence, completely altering the opponent's shot profile in the half-court. His massive frame forced guards into heavily contested floaters rather than high-value layups, driving a stellar defensive rating.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -28.4
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +11.0
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 28.3m -12.3
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 3
S Sidy Cissoko 24.8m
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

Offensive passivity severely hampered the team's spacing, rendering him a liability despite adequate defensive effort. His reluctance to look for his own shot allowed defenders to freely sag into the paint and disrupt driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 24.8m -10.8
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jrue Holiday 24.4m
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.1

Point-of-attack disruption was the defining feature of this stint, constantly blowing up dribble hand-offs and ball-screen actions. Even with a dip in his usual scoring volume, his ability to navigate screens kept the defensive shell intact.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +8.1
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 24.4m -10.6
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Jerami Grant 26.6m
19
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.8

Methodical isolation scoring against mismatches stabilized the half-court offense during stagnant stretches. He consistently punished switches by drawing contact and getting to his spots in the mid-post.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 10/15 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.9%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.0
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 26.6m -11.5
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Caleb Love 25.8m
11
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.0

Settling for early-clock, contested perimeter looks derailed offensive rhythm and fueled a negative overall rating. The sheer volume of empty possessions outweighed a handful of flashy isolation conversions.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.6
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 25.8m -11.2
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Provided a reliable vertical spacing threat that forced the opposing frontcourt to stay tethered to the restricted area. His timely weak-side rotations snuffed out multiple driving angles before they could materialize into scoring chances.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.6
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 19.7m -8.5
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Rayan Rupert 15.8m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

Struggled to process defensive reads quickly enough, resulting in stalled possessions and late-clock desperation attempts. A lack of offensive gravity allowed his primary defender to roam and double-team more dangerous threats.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 15.8m -6.8
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Injected immediate physicality during a brief rotation stint by aggressively fighting over screens. His willingness to sacrifice his body on loose balls kept the overall impact slightly in the green despite zero offensive production.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 4.2m -1.8
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0