GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 32.2m
17
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
+14.4

Elite point-of-attack defense (+5.3 Def) and constant disruption in the passing lanes set the tone for a dominant two-way performance. He generated massive value by turning defensive stops into immediate transition advantages (+5.5 Hustle). Breaking out of a recent scoring funk, his timely shot-making perfectly complemented his defensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +46.4
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +5.5
Defense +5.3
Raw total +27.9
Avg player in 32.2m -13.5
Impact +14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 30.8m
14
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.3

Relentless rim-running and high-percentage interior finishing anchored a highly productive stint. He consistently generated second-chance opportunities through sheer physicality (+3.9 Hustle), wearing down the opposing frontcourt. Continuing a streak of hyper-efficient performances, his paint presence was a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +32.6
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +3.9
Defense +1.9
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 30.8m -12.8
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaylen Brown 29.5m
30
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.5

Absolute dominance on both ends of the floor was highlighted by suffocating perimeter defense (+7.3 Def) that completely neutralized his primary matchup. He paired this with surgical shot-making, punishing defensive rotations with highly efficient scoring. This two-way masterclass generated a massive swing in the team's overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 37.9%
Net Rtg +33.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +4.5
Defense +7.3
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 29.5m -12.3
Impact +16.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Sam Hauser 27.3m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.0

Clanking a barrage of wide-open looks from deep completely derailed the half-court offense and allowed the defense to shrink the floor. His inability to punish closeouts turned him into an offensive liability, leading to a catastrophic double-digit negative impact. Even a respectable effort in loose-ball situations (+2.7 Hustle) couldn't mask the damage of his shooting slump.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense -0.6
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 27.3m -11.4
Impact -12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.2

Stagnant ball movement and forced perimeter jumpers severely limited his offensive effectiveness. By settling for contested looks early in the shot clock, he handed the opponent multiple transition opportunities. This sharp drop-off in scoring efficiency compared to recent outings directly fueled his negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 26.6m -11.2
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
27
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.9

Catching fire from beyond the arc completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme and fueled a massive offensive surge. His lethal shot creation forced hard closeouts, which he consistently punished by attacking the gaps. This scoring masterclass single-handedly drove his elite positive impact rating.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +23.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 24.8m -10.3
Impact +14.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 19.8m
6
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.0

Overcame a shaky shooting performance by relentlessly attacking the offensive glass and keeping possessions alive (+1.9 Hustle). His high-energy closeouts and willingness to do the dirty work stabilized the second unit's defense. Finding ways to contribute without scoring allowed him to grind out a positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +26.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.7
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 19.8m -8.4
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

Smothering on-ball pressure (+5.7 Def) showcased his immense defensive upside during his rotation. However, his complete inability to contribute offensively created a massive spacing issue for the second unit. Bricking all of his attempts allowed defenders to sag off completely, tanking his overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +39.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense -4.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.7
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 17.3m -7.2
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Passing up open looks and failing to threaten the defense completely stalled the offensive flow during his minutes. While he provided solid rotational help on the other end (+2.0 Def), his offensive passivity was a glaring liability. The inability to bend the defense ultimately resulted in a net-negative stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +52.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 13.2m -5.5
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 13.0m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Maximized a limited offensive role by setting bone-crushing screens and fighting for deep post position (+2.1 Hustle). He didn't force any actions, instead relying on fundamental positioning to keep the offense flowing. This disciplined, low-mistake approach resulted in a steady, positive contribution to the rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 13.0m -5.4
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Logged a brief rotational stint that functioned primarily to buy the starters a quick breather. He avoided any glaring mistakes but failed to register any meaningful defensive or hustle statistics. The resulting neutral impact perfectly reflects a quiet, uneventful stretch of cardio.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +57.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense +1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 4.1m -1.7
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Made the most of a microscopic shift by immediately flying around the court to contest loose balls (+0.8 Hustle). He didn't have time to impact the offensive end but brought an instant jolt of defensive energy. This brief flash of activity was enough to secure a slightly positive rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 1.3m -0.5
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Bobby Portis 37.1m
8
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.4

A brutal shooting slump completely overshadowed a highly disruptive defensive performance (+5.4 Def). Forcing up heavily contested midrange looks resulted in a string of empty possessions that killed offensive momentum. His relentless work on the glass and in passing lanes simply wasn't enough to salvage a heavily negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.8%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.4
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 37.1m -15.6
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ryan Rollins 36.2m
25
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+8.0

Slicing through defensive coverages with elite shot selection fueled a massive positive swing for the second unit. He consistently punished drop coverage by hitting high-efficiency looks and creating driving lanes for others. A sustained pattern of hyper-efficient scoring has cemented his role as an offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -25.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 36.2m -15.0
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kyle Kuzma 34.2m
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

Despite solid defensive rotations (+3.7 Def) and active hustle, inefficient interior finishing dragged his overall impact into the red. Forcing contested looks in the paint negated the value he brought as a floor spacer. His two-way effort kept the bleeding to a minimum during his shifts, but the wasted offensive possessions were costly.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.7
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 34.2m -14.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S AJ Green 29.2m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.7

Completely vanished from the offensive gameplan, failing to generate any gravity as a floor spacer. Bricking a handful of crucial looks from beyond the arc allowed the defense to aggressively pack the paint against his teammates. His minimal defensive contributions could not mask a disastrous, nearly double-digit negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -54.0
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 29.2m -12.3
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Myles Turner 26.4m
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Elite rim protection and high-level defensive positioning (+5.3 Def) were largely undone by a continued inability to find the bottom of the net. Settling for perimeter jumpers instead of attacking the paint resulted in a series of empty trips. This marks a concerning pattern of offensive stagnation that is actively capping his overall value.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -47.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +3.3
Defense +5.3
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 26.4m -11.0
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Chucking contested perimeter shots cratered his offensive efficiency and stalled out half-court sets. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent transition opportunities, dragging his overall impact deep into the negative. Despite showing some flashes of active hands (+2.4 Hustle), his poor shot diet proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.3%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -39.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 25.2m -10.6
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Pete Nance 18.1m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Defensive lapses and slow lateral rotations (-1.2 Def) bled points during his minutes on the floor. While he converted a few opportunistic looks, his overall lack of physicality and low hustle metrics allowed opponents to dictate the tempo. He ultimately gave back far more on the defensive end than he provided offensively.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -43.4
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.2
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 18.1m -7.6
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Cole Anthony 14.8m
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.3

Forcing the issue in the paint resulted in a string of highly inefficient, contested misses that killed offensive flow. Compounding the wasted possessions, he was consistently targeted and blown by on the perimeter (-1.5 Def). This combination of tunnel vision and defensive vulnerability severely punished his team's second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -56.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.5
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 14.8m -6.2
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

A disastrous shooting stint saw him brick a flurry of attempts in just eight minutes, completely killing any offensive rhythm. Opponents blatantly ignored him on the perimeter, which clogged the driving lanes for the primary creators. The sheer volume of empty possessions in such a short window resulted in a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 8.3m -3.5
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Executed his role perfectly during a very brief rotation by finishing his lone opportunity at the rim. He maintained structural discipline without forcing any unnecessary actions. This quiet, mistake-free stretch yielded a marginally positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -57.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 4.4m -1.8
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
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Logged a brief, uneventful stint that amounted to little more than cardio. Failed to register a single shot attempt or meaningful defensive rotation during his time on the floor. His presence was entirely neutral, resulting in a slightly negative score due to baseline team performance in that stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -29.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 3.5m -1.5
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Provided a quick burst of energy without disrupting the offensive flow during a micro-shift. Stayed within himself by avoiding wild shot attempts and maintaining solid defensive positioning. His brief appearance was a net positive simply by executing basic system requirements.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense +1.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 2.5m -1.1
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0