GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 39.2m
21
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.3

Outstanding point-of-attack defense and timely perimeter shooting were heavily diluted by struggles to finish inside the arc. He settled for difficult floaters rather than pressuring the rim, leading to empty trips that stalled offensive momentum. Still, his ability to navigate screens and disrupt passing lanes provided a sturdy defensive floor.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +32.4
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +3.3
Defense +6.5
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 39.2m -20.1
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 4
S Jaylen Brown 38.0m
27
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
+2.3

High-level shot creation was heavily offset by sloppy ball security and late defensive closeouts. He consistently punished mismatches in the mid-post, but live-ball giveaways allowed the opponent to leak out for easy transition buckets. The scoring punch was undeniable, yet the underlying mistakes kept his overall value grounded.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 38.0m -19.3
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
12
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.8

Forcing contested looks from beyond the arc severely damaged his offensive efficiency and overall metric. Opponents routinely targeted him in isolation sequences, exposing his lateral quickness on the perimeter. While he found some success cutting to the basket, the volume of wasted perimeter possessions outweighed the positives.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +30.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.2
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 31.6m -16.1
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Sam Hauser 29.1m
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.8

Clanking a steady diet of open spot-up looks from the perimeter cratered his overall effectiveness. Because his value is so heavily tied to floor spacing, the prolonged shooting drought allowed defenders to sag into the paint and disrupt driving lanes. A lack of secondary playmaking meant he had no way to recoup the lost value.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 29.1m -14.8
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Neemias Queta 27.3m
27
pts
17
reb
2
ast
Impact
+32.2

Absolute dominance on the interior fueled a monstrous positive rating, as he completely overwhelmed opposing bigs on the glass. Converting second-chance opportunities at an elite clip punished the defense for every missed box-out. Furthermore, his imposing rim protection deterred countless drives, making this a masterclass in traditional center play.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.4%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +49.9
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +34.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +9.1
Raw total +46.1
Avg player in 27.3m -13.9
Impact +32.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-13.6

A complete inability to generate offensive separation resulted in a disastrous overall rating. He failed to connect on any of his perimeter attempts, allowing defenders to completely ignore him and crowd the primary ball-handlers. Despite showing some fight navigating over screens defensively, the total lack of scoring gravity made him a severe liability.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +16.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense -4.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 27.3m -13.9
Impact -13.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Stretching the floor effectively as a trail big pulled the opposing rim protector away from the basket, opening up crucial driving lanes. He secured defensive rebounds with textbook positioning, ending possessions cleanly without needing to rely on supreme athleticism. This steady, mistake-free execution in the pick-and-pop game provided a reliable offensive safety valve.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 20.7m -10.6
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jordan Walsh 13.8m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Rushing his offensive reads led to several wild attempts in traffic that squandered valuable possessions. While he managed to connect on a couple of catch-and-shoot opportunities, his erratic decision-making off the bounce proved costly. He struggled to maintain discipline on defensive closeouts, frequently biting on pump fakes.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +34.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.1
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 13.8m -7.1
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Hesitancy to attack closeouts rendered him mostly invisible during his time on the floor, dragging his impact into the negative. He operated too passively on the perimeter, allowing the defense to rest when the ball swung his way. A lack of disruptive defensive plays meant he couldn't offset his offensive disappearing act.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -14.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 12.9m -6.6
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 43.3m
33
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.1

An incredibly taxing offensive workload yielded a positive but muted overall rating due to the sheer number of misfires. He settled for tough, late-clock isolations that dragged down his efficiency, though his constant downhill pressure forced defensive rotations. Ultimately, his playmaking gravity and ability to draw defensive attention salvaged the high-usage performance.

Shooting
FG 12/34 (35.3%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 36.7%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.3m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.3
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 43.3m -22.2
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S VJ Edgecombe 40.3m
23
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.2

Relentless energy on 50/50 balls and transition sprints kept his impact firmly in the green despite a streaky shooting night. He relied heavily on a barrage of perimeter attempts to generate his scoring, masking some inefficiency inside the arc. His aggressive point-of-attack defense set the tone during crucial second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 8/21 (38.1%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.3m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +7.0
Defense +5.5
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 40.3m -20.5
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 34.4m
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-16.4

Forcing contested looks out of rhythm completely tanked his overall value in this one. While he salvaged a bit of utility through active perimeter closeouts and loose ball recoveries, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions was too costly. His inability to finish at the rim derailed the team's half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 34.4m -17.6
Impact -16.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Andre Drummond 32.1m
10
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.3

Anchoring the paint with heavy rim deterrence drove a massive defensive rating spike. Surprisingly stepping out to knock down trailing perimeter shots completely warped the opponent's defensive shell. His sheer physical dominance on the interior created crucial extra possessions and stifled driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 79.1%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +5.2
Defense +10.8
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 32.1m -16.4
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dominick Barlow 28.1m
14
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.0

Exceptional defensive positioning and relentless rim-running fueled a massive spike in his overall effectiveness. He consistently beat opposing bigs down the floor in transition, generating high-percentage looks that maximized his touches. The combination of vertical spacing and active hands in the passing lanes made him a two-way catalyst.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +4.7
Defense +5.7
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 28.1m -14.4
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.2

Extreme passivity on the offensive end resulted in a severe negative rating, as he frequently passed up open catch-and-shoot opportunities. Without his typical floor-spacing threat, the offense bogged down during his minutes. He failed to make up the difference defensively, struggling to navigate through off-ball screens.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg -33.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 26.6m -13.6
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Adem Bona 15.9m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

A brief but stable stint was defined by disciplined pick-and-roll coverage and solid screen-setting. He avoided costly mistakes in limited action, playing within his role as a quick-rolling lob threat. This low-usage, mistake-free approach kept his overall metric slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -19.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 15.9m -8.1
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Perfect shooting from the floor wasn't enough to overcome a lack of defensive resistance and rebounding presence. He frequently found himself out of position on weak-side rotations, bleeding value on the defensive end. The inability to generate secondary stats or disrupt passing lanes ultimately pushed his rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -53.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 14.7m -7.4
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

A fleeting appearance yielded a negative return due to immediate defensive mismatches that opponents quickly exploited. He failed to initiate any meaningful offensive sets before being pulled from the rotation. The lack of aggression and physical disadvantages defined this brief stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -77.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 4.7m -2.4
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0