GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 41.3m
21
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.9

Elite point-of-attack defense (+9.1) and relentless hustle (+4.2) drove a highly positive impact (+6.9) despite a brutal shooting night. He controlled the game's tempo through sheer disruption, consistently blowing up passing lanes and generating extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/20 (30.0%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.3%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.3m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +9.1
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 41.3m -20.0
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 0
S Sam Hauser 35.3m
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.3

Opposing defenses completely ignored him on the perimeter after a string of early misses, bogging down the half-court spacing and tanking his impact (-7.3). The severe shooting slump overshadowed an otherwise stellar defensive performance (+6.6) where he consistently blew up dribble hand-offs.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 8.4%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.6
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 35.3m -17.0
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jaylen Brown 33.1m
29
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.2

A heavy diet of forced, contested jumpers against set defenses severely damaged his overall impact (-9.2). The sheer volume of empty offensive possessions stalled ball movement and allowed the opposition to consistently leak out in transition.

Shooting
FG 11/25 (44.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.3%
USG% 46.2%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 33.1m -16.0
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 7
S Neemias Queta 21.8m
2
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Being repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll drop coverage bled points and dragged his overall rating into the red (-2.4). The high volume of board-crashing masked how often he was pulled out of position by quicker guards on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 21.8m -10.5
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Luka Garza 10.2m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Maintained the status quo during the backup center minutes to scrape out a slightly positive impact (+0.3). While his offensive touches were virtually non-existent, he held his ground in the post and provided steady interior resistance (+2.4 Def).

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg -35.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 10.2m -4.9
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
24
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

Sizzling perimeter execution was heavily mitigated by defensive limitations (+0.7), resulting in a barely positive overall impact (+0.8). Opponents ruthlessly hunted him on switches, erasing much of the value he generated through his deep floor-spacing.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.6%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 35.6m -17.2
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.8

Dominant positional defense (+9.3) and flawless execution as a release valve anchored a massive overall impact (+12.8). He completely walled off the paint against driving guards, forcing contested floaters while controlling the defensive glass with ease.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +3.2
Defense +9.3
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 27.9m -13.4
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.5

Surprisingly stout rotational defense (+7.0) fueled a highly productive stint and a positive overall impact (+3.5). He consistently made the right reads as a weak-side helper, stabilizing the second unit while capitalizing on his limited catch-and-shoot looks.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +50.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +7.0
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 18.6m -8.9
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

A complete lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to roam freely, severely dragging down his overall impact (-5.0). He struggled to find any rhythm within the half-court sets, though he did offer some mild resistance on the perimeter (+2.6 Def).

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.6
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 16.2m -7.9
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
MIA Miami Heat
S Andrew Wiggins 38.4m
26
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+16.5

Elite perimeter execution and lockdown wing defense (+9.4) drove a massive overall impact (+16.5). He capitalized on open catch-and-shoot opportunities to nearly double his recent scoring average, completely shifting the momentum of the game.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.0%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +6.2
Defense +9.4
Raw total +35.0
Avg player in 38.4m -18.5
Impact +16.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Norman Powell 35.0m
24
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.6

Relentless downhill pressure and decisive slashing fueled a stellar overall impact (+14.6). He consistently beat closeouts to collapse the opposing defense, while a surprisingly elite defensive effort (+9.7) solidified his two-way dominance.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +5.5
Defense +9.7
Raw total +31.6
Avg player in 35.0m -17.0
Impact +14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
S Bam Adebayo 34.6m
16
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Settling for low-percentage perimeter jumpers suppressed his overall impact (+1.2) despite solid underlying metrics. His insistence on forcing three-pointers disrupted the interior rhythm, though his steady defensive anchoring (+5.2) and active contest rates kept him marginally in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +4.3
Defense +5.2
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 34.6m -16.8
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Davion Mitchell 29.5m
13
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.0

A surprising lack of point-of-attack resistance (+0.6 Def) allowed opposing guards to dictate the tempo, dragging his overall impact into the red (-3.0). While he found some success initiating the offense, his inability to contain dribble penetration negated those gains.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 29.5m -14.3
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Pelle Larsson 11.6m
0
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.3

Completely vanished from the offense, failing to attempt a single shot after a five-game stretch of high-efficiency scoring. The lack of aggression tanked his overall impact (-7.3), as he offered minimal resistance or hustle to compensate during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +71.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 11.6m -5.6
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-5.5

A strangely passive approach in the half-court tanked his overall impact (-5.5) as he failed to generate his usual paint touches. His minimal contributions in hustle (+1.0) and defensive metrics (+1.2) compounded the issue, making him a net-negative during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 31.0m -15.0
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Blanking completely from the field stalled the second-unit offense and dragged his overall rating into the red (-3.0). Despite the shooting woes, he remained highly engaged on the other end, using his length to disrupt passing lanes and generate positive defensive value (+4.2).

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 19.5m -9.4
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Dru Smith 18.5m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

An inability to space the floor allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes, resulting in a negative overall impact (-1.9). He did salvage some value through active rotational defense and loose-ball recoveries (+3.2 Hustle), but the offensive limitations were too glaring.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +3.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 18.5m -8.9
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Rushed attempts around the basket and poor touch on interior finishes kept his impact slightly negative (-0.9). He was too easily pushed off his spots by physical post defenders, though he did flash some solid rim-protection instincts (+3.1 Def) in limited action.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 9.5m -4.5
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

Forcing deep, early-clock perimeter shots completely derailed the offensive momentum and cratered his impact (-4.3). The disastrous shot selection in such a short stint overshadowed any marginal rotational help he provided on defense.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -137.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense -3.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 6.4m -3.1
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Barely registered during a brief stint, offering no offensive gravity and a slight negative presence on defense (-0.3). He was entirely bypassed in the offensive flow, failing to replicate the efficient finishing of his recent outings.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -63.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.3
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 6.0m -2.9
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0