GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 32.1m
12
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.4

Put on an absolute clinic in screen navigation and point-of-attack disruption to anchor the perimeter defense. However, his overall impact was dragged down by a string of unforced passing errors that ignited opponent fast breaks. The elite defensive metrics couldn't fully compensate for giving the ball away in high-leverage moments.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +51.7
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +8.8
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 32.1m -20.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jaylen Brown 29.9m
28
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
+13.9

Dominated the game through ruthless efficiency and suffocating on-ball defense. His ability to seamlessly switch across multiple positions completely short-circuited the opponent's pick-and-roll attack. A masterclass in two-way impact, highlighted by flawless perimeter shooting that buried the defense early.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.4%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg +42.4
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +22.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense +6.7
Raw total +32.9
Avg player in 29.9m -19.0
Impact +13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Sam Hauser 26.6m
13
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.3

Opponents aggressively targeted him in isolation, exposing his lateral quickness and driving his impact score into the red. Even though he hit a few timely jumpers, the defensive bleeding wiped out his offensive contributions. The negative net rating reflects how often the defense had to scramble to cover his assignments.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +51.9
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense 0.0
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 26.6m -16.7
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.0

Delivered a flawless offensive performance by capitalizing on every spot-up opportunity the defense surrendered. His relentless off-ball movement and high-IQ passing tore apart zone coverages during a critical second-quarter run. Exceptional hustle and perfect shooting efficiency drove a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 128.9%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +40.9
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +4.6
Defense +4.4
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 22.1m -14.0
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Neemias Queta 14.9m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.8

Anchored the second unit with imposing rim protection and a refusal to give up deep post position. His continued streak of hyper-efficient finishing punished double-teams that rotated away from the paint. Controlled the restricted area masterfully, turning away drivers and securing vital extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 14.9m -9.5
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
22
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.8

Kept the offense humming with blistering perimeter shooting and decisive drives against closeouts. He consistently exploited drop coverage, punishing big men who refused to step up to the three-point line. Maintained his recent hot streak by taking exactly what the defense gave him without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +72.4
+/- +40
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 28.0m -17.9
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
28
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+19.1

Punished the interior with an array of high-efficiency post moves and brilliant passing out of double teams. His defensive positioning was immaculate, consistently dropping back to swallow up driving lanes without fouling. A dominant, tone-setting performance that dictated the pace of the entire game.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.1%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg +68.1
+/- +35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +26.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +7.0
Raw total +35.2
Avg player in 25.3m -16.1
Impact +19.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Broke out offensively by aggressively cutting baseline and finishing through contact. His real value, however, came from suffocating perimeter defense that completely neutralized the opposing bench guards. A high-energy shift that provided a massive two-way spark when the primary rotation rested.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +39.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.5
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 21.4m -13.4
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 14.8m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Despite knocking down his open looks, his inability to execute defensive rotations led to a barrage of uncontested layups. He frequently found himself caught in no-man's land on pick-and-rolls, forcing teammates into impossible closeouts. The flawless shooting line masked a highly damaging defensive shift.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 14.8m -9.4
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Luka Garza 7.8m
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.0

Embraced a gritty, physical role inside despite seeing his usual scoring volume plummet. His sturdy post defense and textbook box-outs neutralized the opponent's offensive rebounding threat. Proved he could positively impact winning even when the offensive touches dried up.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.2%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.5
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 7.8m -5.0
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Derailed the second-unit offense by hijacking possessions with out-of-rhythm, contested jumpers. His lack of urgency getting back on defense allowed the opposition to score easily in semi-transition. A highly inefficient stint that quickly bled away the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg -19.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 6.0m -3.7
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Managed to finally break his scoring drought, but poor closeout angles on shooters negated the offensive contribution. He struggled to process defensive coverages at game speed, frequently leaving the weak-side corner exposed. The long-awaited made basket couldn't salvage a disjointed defensive performance.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -19.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 6.0m -3.7
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
John Tonje 5.2m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Barely registered an impact during his brief time on the floor, floating around the perimeter without forcing the defense to react. While he didn't make any glaring mistakes, his extreme passivity allowed the opponent to essentially play five-on-four. A placeholder shift defined by a complete lack of offensive aggression.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 5.2m -3.2
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
18
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Solid scoring punch was nearly negated by poor weak-side awareness that allowed easy back-door cuts. His length disrupted passing lanes effectively, but empty possessions in the half-court stalled the offense's rhythm. A positive overall impact, though his shot selection forced the team into tough transition defensive spots.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.4%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -42.7
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.4
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 25.5m -16.2
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nolan Traore 24.1m
8
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.4

Relentless point-of-attack pressure and constant loose-ball recoveries kept his team in the fight. However, erratic finishing at the rim and forced isolation jumpers prevented him from posting a positive overall score. His high-motor defensive performance was ultimately neutralized by inefficient offensive decision-making.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -41.3
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.1
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 24.1m -15.2
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nic Claxton 23.3m
12
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.5

Interior presence was oddly muted, as a lack of rim deterrence allowed opponents to feast in the restricted area. While he converted his typical lob opportunities efficiently, his inability to secure contested defensive rebounds fueled second-chance points for the opposition. The negative impact stems directly from getting out-muscled in the paint during crucial second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -40.8
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.1
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 23.3m -14.8
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Noah Clowney 21.8m
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

Despite a much-needed aggressive scoring surge compared to his recent slump, defensive miscommunications dragged his overall impact into the red. He capitalized on pick-and-pop opportunities beautifully, yet struggled to anchor the paint against physical drives. The offensive breakout was overshadowed by late-game rotational errors.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -40.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 21.8m -13.8
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 78.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Egor Dëmin 21.7m
5
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.5

Impact cratered due to a disastrous stint navigating screens, constantly leaving shooters wide open on the perimeter. His hesitation to initiate the offense led to stagnant possessions and costly shot-clock violations. A severe defensive liability tonight who gave up significantly more than he generated.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.4
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 21.7m -13.8
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Danny Wolf 22.6m
16
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Capitalized on a favorable frontcourt matchup to deliver a massive offensive spark off the bench. Active hands in the passing lanes and timely weak-side rotations complemented his scoring surge perfectly. His ability to stretch the floor opened up driving lanes for the guards, cementing a highly productive shift.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 22.6m -14.4
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Terance Mann 17.6m
8
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.1

Found his offensive rhythm after a quiet stretch, attacking closeouts with renewed confidence. Unfortunately, blown assignments in transition and a tendency to over-help off strong-side shooters bled points on the other end. The scoring bump couldn't mask the defensive breakdowns that drove his negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -63.2
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.3
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 17.6m -11.1
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Generated massive value through sheer effort, keeping multiple possessions alive with relentless offensive tip-outs. Yet, an uncharacteristic lack of scoring punch and hesitance to pull the trigger from deep allowed defenders to sag into the paint. His high-energy performance was ultimately undone by his sudden lack of offensive gravity.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -57.6
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +4.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 17.1m -10.8
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Minott 16.2m
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Stagnated the offense by settling for contested mid-range pull-ups rather than attacking the basket. While he showed flashes of decent weak-side help, his overall defensive intensity wavered during opponent scoring runs. The drop in scoring volume exposed his lack of off-ball movement.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -44.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 16.2m -10.2
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.8

Forced ugly shots through double-teams in the post, completely derailing the offense's spacing. Compounding the bricked layups were lazy closeouts that allowed uncontested looks from deep. A highly detrimental shift defined by tunnel vision and heavy feet on defense.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -41.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.1
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 14.8m -9.4
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.8

Provided solid rim deterrence in limited minutes, effectively altering shots around the basket. However, his tendency to clog the dunker spot ruined the team's half-court spacing and led to stalled possessions. A mixed bag where decent defensive positioning was outweighed by offensive clunkiness.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 9.8m -6.2
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Ben Saraf 9.8m
7
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

Snapped out of a recent shooting funk by taking only high-percentage, in-rhythm looks. His disciplined shot selection maximized his brief time on the floor and kept the offense flowing smoothly. Played within himself, avoiding the forced drives that had plagued his previous outings.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 9.8m -6.2
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.4

Completely flipped the momentum in a brief stint by punishing defensive rotations with decisive perimeter shooting. His sudden offensive explosion forced the opponent to burn a timeout and readjust their coverage. Maximized every second of floor time by providing instant spacing and mistake-free execution.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 133.3%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 7.8m -4.9
Impact +5.4
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
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

A completely invisible offensive shift combined with sluggish closeouts resulted in a massive negative swing. He failed to register any hustle stats and routinely lost his man on backdoor cuts. The complete disappearance of his usual scoring punch left the second unit entirely devoid of creation.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total -2.1
Avg player in 7.8m -4.9
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0