GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 30.9m
11
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.2

Elite hustle (+7.8) and defensive metrics (+6.4) nearly salvaged a brutal shooting night. Clanking four deep looks and struggling to finish in traffic dragged his offensive value down, leaving his total impact hovering just below neutral. He essentially traded his offensive inefficiency for relentless point-of-attack disruption.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +7.8
Defense +6.4
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 30.9m -16.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaylen Brown 29.2m
21
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.8

A disastrous performance from beyond the arc completely derailed his offensive efficiency and dragged his total impact deep into the negative. While he found some success attacking the midrange, the sheer volume of wasted perimeter possessions stalled the offense. His scoring output fell significantly short of his recent dominant stretch, leaving a noticeable void.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.3%
USG% 35.8%
Net Rtg -36.4
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 29.2m -15.9
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
12
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

A complete lack of playmaking and a broken perimeter jumper resulted in a highly detrimental stint on the floor. Forcing shots without setting up teammates killed the offensive flow and led to a sharp -6.5 total impact. Falling well short of his recent scoring tears, he looked completely out of rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -52.6
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 27.9m -15.1
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sam Hauser 25.4m
12
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.9

Provided a steadying presence with highly positive defensive metrics (+4.6) that complemented his floor-spacing role. Even with a slightly erratic deep stroke, his willingness to crash the glass and execute within the scheme kept his impact firmly in the green. A quintessential glue-guy performance that elevated the secondary lineups.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.6
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 25.4m -13.8
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Amari Williams 15.2m
2
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.2

Offensive limitations severely handicapped his overall rating, as he struggled to finish even basic looks around the basket. While he offered some minor defensive resistance, his inability to command defensive attention clogged the paint for drivers. The negative box score impact overwhelmed any marginal hustle contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 15.2m -8.3
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Bleeding points during his shifts erased a massive personal scoring surge. While his perimeter execution was near-perfect, a -3.8 total impact suggests his unit was heavily outscored in transition or defensive rotations. The individual shot-making couldn't overcome the structural breakdowns while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 26.6m -14.5
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Luka Garza 23.9m
11
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.8

Exceptional passing from the high post unlocked the offense and drove a solid positive impact. While his perimeter touch was absent, his interior positioning and surprising defensive awareness (+4.1) kept the second unit humming. Continuing a streak of highly efficient interior finishing, he proved to be a reliable focal point.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.1
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 23.9m -12.9
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Jordan Walsh 20.9m
4
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Offensive passivity and poor finishing around the rim resulted in a slightly negative overall showing. While he provided solid rotational defense (+2.1), his inability to punish closeouts or finish plays bogged down the half-court sets. Needs to convert his few opportunities to justify the floor time.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 20.9m -11.5
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Surgical shot selection fueled a highly efficient offensive showing that kept his impact firmly positive. He didn't force the issue, taking only high-quality looks and converting them at a premium clip. Adequate defensive effort ensured he didn't give back the points he generated.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 18.8m -10.1
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.5

Overcame a horrific shooting performance by leaning heavily into his secondary playmaking and hustle (+2.9). Missing all his deep looks normally tanks a player's rating, but his connective passing kept the offensive wheels turning. A gritty showing where he found alternative ways to contribute when the shot wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +34.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.5
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 16.6m -9.1
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

Delivered a quick, efficient burst of energy during his brief time on the hardwood. He decisively took the shots presented to him, keeping his impact positive despite a sharp drop in his usual scoring volume. A textbook example of maximizing limited rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 4.7m -2.7
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Dyson Daniels 35.4m
15
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
+18.9

Put on an absolute masterclass in two-way impact, generating a staggering +15.1 defensive score through relentless point-of-attack pressure. His elite hustle metrics (+5.6) translated directly into extra possessions and transition opportunities. Flawless shot selection ensured he capitalized on every offensive chance he created.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +5.6
Defense +15.1
Raw total +38.2
Avg player in 35.4m -19.3
Impact +18.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jalen Johnson 32.7m
19
pts
14
reb
7
ast
Impact
-5.5

Despite heavy usage, his overall impact cratered due to severe inefficiency on two-point attempts. Clanking ten shots killed offensive momentum and allowed the opponent to leak out in transition. The volume simply didn't translate to winning basketball when his interior finishing abandoned him.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +37.1
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.0
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 32.7m -17.9
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
21
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.2

High-volume perimeter bombing fueled a strong offensive rating, though his shot diet was heavily skewed toward deep looks. What really separated this performance was his exceptional defensive activity (+8.7) and hustle on the perimeter. He effectively weaponized his length to disrupt passing lanes while carrying a heavy scoring load.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +23.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +5.7
Defense +8.7
Raw total +26.1
Avg player in 30.9m -16.9
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Onyeka Okongwu 28.7m
17
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.4

Anchored the interior with a massive defensive rating (+9.4) that completely disrupted the opponent's paint attacks. His willingness to stretch the floor was a mixed bag, but his sheer physical presence and rim deterrence drove a highly positive net rating. He consistently turned stops into quality transition looks.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +9.4
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 28.7m -15.7
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Corey Kispert 20.2m
13
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

A sudden surge in scoring volume well above his recent baseline kept his overall impact in the green. Excellent shot selection from beyond the arc maximized his offensive possessions. His minimal defensive contributions meant he had to rely entirely on his perimeter touch to stay positive.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 20.2m -10.9
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CJ McCollum 29.4m
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.0

Poor perimeter execution dragged his overall impact into the red, as he repeatedly settled for contested jumpers. The scoring volume couldn't mask the inefficiency of missing four deep looks that stalled half-court sets. Even a respectable defensive effort wasn't enough to salvage a highly inefficient shooting night.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.4%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.1
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 29.4m -16.0
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kennard 24.0m
9
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

Operating strictly as a spot-up decoy resulted in a negative net impact, as he offered absolutely zero secondary playmaking or rebounding. While his shot conversion was adequate, his inability to generate gravity or defensive stops left the team exposed. He essentially played cardio while on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.5
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 24.0m -13.0
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

A complete lack of hustle plays (+0.0) limited his ability to influence the game beyond basic execution. He was highly efficient with his limited touches, but his passive approach on the margins kept his total impact slightly negative. Needs to impose his physicality more to swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg -21.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +7.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 18.6m -10.2
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.9

Completely vanished from the offensive gameplan, failing to register a single point while logging empty minutes. His negative defensive impact (-0.8) compounded the issue, as he offered zero rim protection to offset his offensive invisibility. A total non-factor who was actively played off the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.3%
Net Rtg +59.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 12.6m -6.9
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Made the most of a brief cameo by decisively attacking closeouts and converting his limited opportunities. His quick scoring burst provided a minor positive jolt to the second unit. Stayed within his role perfectly without forcing bad shots.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -83.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 6.2m -3.3
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Burned through his brief appearance with empty possessions and forced attempts. Failing to register a single positive statistic across the board tanked his per-minute impact. A completely forgettable stint defined by rushed offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -250.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense -1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 1.4m -0.7
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0