GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 34.2m
19
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.4

A high offensive workload was largely negated by uncharacteristic defensive lapses that dragged down his total score. A pattern of losing his man on back-door cuts erased the value of his perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 34.2m -15.4
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jaylen Brown 33.1m
26
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.9

High-volume inefficiency from the perimeter severely capped what could have been a dominant offensive rating. A persistent pattern of forcing contested mid-range pull-ups dragged down his overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 11/25 (44.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.6%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.2
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 33.1m -15.0
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
13
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.9

Relentless rebounding and high-level hustle metrics completely offset a poor shooting night. A pattern of tracking down long rebounds generated crucial second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +3.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 29.2m -13.1
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 22.8m
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.1

Severe struggles anchoring the paint and likely foul trouble absolutely tanked his overall impact. A pattern of biting on pump fakes compromised the interior defense repeatedly.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 22.8m -10.3
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Luka Garza 15.3m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Poor spacing and defensive liabilities in the pick-and-roll resulted in a negative overall showing. A pattern of bricked trail-threes stalled the secondary offense.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.4
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 15.3m -6.8
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.0

Abysmal perimeter shooting cratered his offensive value despite surprisingly elite defensive metrics. A glaring pattern of clanking wide-open spot-up looks killed multiple offensive runs.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -45.0
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +6.0
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 30.5m -13.7
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Inefficient post touches and missed trail-threes dragged his impact into the red. Despite a pattern of excellent effort on the offensive glass, his inability to finish heavily penalized the team.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -49.4
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 23.5m -10.5
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

Complete offensive disjointedness and poor shot selection resulted in a disastrous overall rating. A pattern of forcing contested drives into heavy traffic led to empty, momentum-killing trips.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -45.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 21.3m -9.6
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 12.8m
2
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.2

Elite defensive versatility and high-energy rotations completely salvaged a poor shooting performance. A pattern of blowing up dribble hand-offs on the perimeter defined his highly disruptive stint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -30.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 12.8m -5.8
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

Rushed perimeter attempts and an inability to find the flow of the offense severely damaged his impact. A pattern of settling for early-clock threes bailed out the opposing defense.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.2
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 12.5m -5.6
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

A lack of offensive assertiveness and missed rotations led to a slightly negative short shift. A pattern of getting sealed off too easily in the post allowed quick opponent scores.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 4.7m -2.2
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 33.2m
31
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+12.2

Masterful shot creation and elite finishing in the paint drove a massive positive impact. His ability to consistently break down the primary defender fueled a dominant offensive stretch in the second half.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg +34.9
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +23.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 33.2m -14.9
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 18.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Mikal Bridges 30.4m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.6

Defensive rotations drove his positive impact, effectively shutting down the perimeter. A pattern of timely closeouts compensated for a relatively quiet offensive night.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 30.4m -13.8
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Offensive passivity and missed perimeter looks cratered his overall impact despite surprisingly stout interior defense. A pattern of settling for contested mid-range jumpers rather than attacking the rim limited his effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 47.3%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.6
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 29.4m -13.1
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Landry Shamet 27.8m
3
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.8

Bricklaying from beyond the arc heavily penalized his overall value. A glaring pattern of blown defensive assignments and empty offensive trips completely derailed his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 27.8m -12.5
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Josh Hart 26.3m
19
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.0

Relentless transition pushes and secondary scoring fueled a massive box score spike. His pattern of crashing the glass and generating extra possessions kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 26.3m -11.8
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.5

Flawless shot selection and high-energy hustle plays maximized his limited touches. A pattern of perfectly timed baseline cuts yielded easy buckets and swung momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 26.5m -11.9
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.8

Absolute chaos creation on the defensive end resulted in elite hustle and defensive metrics. His signature pattern of full-court pressure disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm from the opening tip.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +29.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +6.5
Defense +5.3
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 25.1m -11.2
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.2

Elite rim protection and constant activity in the painted area generated significant defensive value. A pattern of altering shots at the basket completely masked his lack of offensive involvement.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/8 (37.5%)
Advanced
TS% 45.3%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +49.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 16.0m -7.2
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Defensive engagement surprisingly salvaged an empty offensive stint. He established a pattern of staying in front of his man, preventing dribble penetration during a brief rotation appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg +65.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.3
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 7.5m -3.4
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Rushed offensive execution and missed jumpers quickly sank his impact during a brief cameo. A pattern of forcing shots early in the shot clock led to empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.2
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 3.8m -1.7
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.0

Instant perimeter offense provided a massive per-minute boost to the overall rating. A quick pattern of spotting up in transition punished the retreating defense.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 3.8m -1.7
Impact +5.0
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
-1.2

Ineffective positioning on both ends resulted in a slight negative drag during garbage time. He showed a pattern of being a step slow on defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 3.8m -1.7
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

Active hands and solid positional awareness generated a quick defensive boost. A pattern of denying entry passes kept his brief stint in the green.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +42.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 3.5m -1.6
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Minimal involvement on either end of the floor left him with a slightly negative baseline score. He established no rhythm, mostly floating on the perimeter during his short run.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +53.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense +0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 2.8m -1.3
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0