GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 29.7m
9
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
+6.9

Dictated the flow of the game entirely through elite defensive instincts and brilliant connective passing. Even with his shot not falling, his ability to blow up pick-and-rolls and generate deflections created immense value. Proved once again that his impact goes far beyond scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +28.9
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +5.5
Defense +9.9
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 29.7m -17.3
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Jaylen Brown 28.9m
24
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.3

Forced the issue offensively with a heavy diet of contested jumpers, dragging down his overall efficiency. The high volume of missed perimeter shots allowed the defense to leak out in transition, resulting in a negative net impact despite the raw scoring totals. Needs to prioritize attacking the paint rather than settling for early-clock threes.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.7
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 28.9m -16.9
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.1

Elevated his impact through sheer effort, generating a massive hustle score by diving for loose balls and extending possessions. The improved scoring output was a direct result of taking high-quality, in-rhythm shots rather than forcing the issue. A gritty, two-way performance that energized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +5.8
Defense +3.7
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 23.6m -13.8
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sam Hauser 21.7m
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Provided exactly the floor-spacing gravity required, punishing late closeouts with a lethal perimeter stroke. His defensive rotations were fundamentally sound, ensuring he wasn't a liability when run off the line. A textbook role-player performance that kept the offensive spacing intact.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 21.7m -12.7
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Neemias Queta 14.7m
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.4

Continued his streak of flawless interior finishing by dominating the restricted area. His vertical spacing and hard rolls to the rim collapsed the defense, opening up the perimeter for shooters. Generated positive value through sheer physicality and excellent shot selection.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 14.7m -8.6
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
26
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.2

Carried the offensive load with a relentless attacking mentality, breaking down defenders off the dribble to create high-percentage looks. While his scoring volume was excellent, his overall impact was slightly muted by defensive limitations against bigger guards. Still, his ability to orchestrate the offense kept the team afloat during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +6.4
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 33.7m -19.7
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
Jordan Walsh 29.1m
16
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.8

Delivered a breakout performance defined by relentless two-way energy and exceptional cutting off the ball. His defensive versatility suffocated opposing wings, while his hustle generated crucial extra possessions. A massive positive impact that showcased his potential as an elite glue guy.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +5.0
Defense +8.6
Raw total +31.7
Avg player in 29.1m -16.9
Impact +14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
19
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.2

Absolutely dismantled the opposing frontcourt by stretching the floor and pulling rim protectors out of the paint. His defensive positioning was superb, consistently walling off the paint and securing contested defensive rebounds to end possessions. A masterclass in two-way center play that anchored the entire lineup.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +43.5
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +4.1
Defense +11.2
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 26.4m -15.5
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.6

An offensive black hole whose inability to threaten the defense completely compromised the team's spacing. Defenders routinely ignored him on the perimeter, allowing them to pack the paint and stifle driving lanes. The negative impact is a direct reflection of playing four-on-five offensively.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 16.3m -9.6
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

Looked completely overwhelmed by the speed of the game during his brief stint, contributing to a steep negative impact. Failed to execute offensive sets properly, leading to disjointed possessions and wasted shot clock. Needs to process the game faster to avoid being a liability on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total -2.3
Avg player in 9.0m -5.3
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Luka Garza 6.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.0

A rare dud after a highly efficient stretch, as he failed to establish any interior leverage in limited action. Opponents immediately attacked his lack of lateral quickness on defense, resulting in a brutal impact swing in under seven minutes. Simply couldn't find the rhythm that had fueled his recent success.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -61.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.9m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total -3.1
Avg player in 6.9m -3.9
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
12
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.8

Broke out of a brutal shooting slump by finding his spots within the flow of the offense rather than forcing looks. His defensive versatility anchored the perimeter, allowing him to heavily influence the game even on moderate volume. A massive step forward in offensive confidence compared to his recent passive stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +3.6
Defense +8.5
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 34.5m -20.2
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Collin Sexton 31.7m
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.5

Cooled off significantly from his recent hot streak, forcing drives into traffic that resulted in negative overall value. The tunnel vision on offense limited ball movement and allowed the defense to collapse on him easily. While he competed on defense, his inefficient isolation attempts ultimately dragged down the unit.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.0
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 31.7m -18.5
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Matas Buzelis 28.7m
15
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.8

Defensive rotations were the real story here, as his length disrupted passing lanes and generated a stellar defensive impact score. Spotting up effectively from deep kept the floor spaced for his teammates. His ability to crash the glass and initiate transition opportunities kept the team's tempo high.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +9.5
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 28.7m -16.8
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Anfernee Simons 27.9m
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.8

A disastrous overall impact driven by poor shot selection and an inability to create separation. Settling for heavily contested perimeter looks completely stalled the offensive rhythm and fueled long rebounds for the opponent. Despite decent effort on the boards, his offensive inefficiency created too many empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 27.9m -16.3
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

Bleeding value on the defensive end negated a decent offensive outing. He struggled to contain quicker matchups on the perimeter, leading to breakdowns that drove his negative net rating. Needs to leverage his physicality better to avoid being targeted in pick-and-roll actions.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg -37.6
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 25.3m -14.8
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.5

Found his offensive rhythm by attacking the mid-range and distributing effectively, breaking out of a prolonged scoring slump. However, his defensive positioning remains a liability, as opponents consistently targeted him in switch actions to generate easy looks. The scoring punch was a welcome sight, but he gave too much back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -27.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.6
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 30.1m -17.7
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
Jaden Ivey 28.6m
10
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.0

Reckless decision-making on the perimeter undercut his dynamic slashing ability. Struggled to connect from beyond the arc, which allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. The negative overall impact stems directly from stalled offensive sets when he failed to read the secondary help defense.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 28.6m -16.8
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Failed to establish any interior presence, missing multiple point-blank looks around the rim. His inability to finish through contact or secure contested rebounds allowed opponents to dominate the paint. Even with a rare perimeter make, his overall lack of physicality resulted in a noticeable negative swing.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -29.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 20.8m -12.0
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.7

Made the most of his touches during a short rotation, converting efficiently around the basket. His activity on the glass helped sustain possessions, even if his overall scoring volume dropped from recent outings. Played strictly within his role to deliver a solid, mistake-free shift.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +61.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 6.9m -4.0
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.7

Maximized a brief stint on the floor with decisive, high-percentage actions that immediately boosted the offense. Showed excellent spatial awareness by slipping screens and finding soft spots in the coverage. A highly efficient burst of energy that provided a tangible positive swing in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +54.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 5.5m -3.3
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0