GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 33.7m
20
pts
11
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.6

A high volume of contested, low-percentage mid-range jumpers severely hampered his offensive efficiency. While he remained engaged as an on-ball defender, the sheer number of missed shots derailed the team's half-court rhythm. Forcing isolation plays against double-teams ultimately resulted in a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 31.2%
Net Rtg -34.9
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.5
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 33.7m -16.1
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.0

Despite flashing excellent hustle and capitalizing on limited offensive touches, defensive miscommunications dragged his overall impact into the red. He was frequently targeted in pick-and-roll switches, giving up straight-line drives to quicker guards. The energetic loose-ball recoveries couldn't quite mask the structural defensive breakdowns he was involved in.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 31.5m -14.9
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Derrick White 29.3m
29
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.7

Masterful pace and relentless downhill attacking shattered the opponent's defensive shell. He consistently punished drop coverages with decisive floaters and generated high-quality looks for himself all night. This offensive explosion, paired with his signature point-of-attack disruption, resulted in a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +22.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 29.3m -13.8
Impact +13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Sam Hauser 25.3m
3
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.3

An uncharacteristic inability to knock down open catch-and-shoot looks completely neutralized his primary value on the floor. Because defenders didn't respect his shot, the spacing collapsed, suffocating the interior offense. Without his usual perimeter gravity, his lack of secondary playmaking was glaringly exposed.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -46.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 25.3m -12.1
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Neemias Queta 16.2m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Struggled to establish deep post position, leading to rushed hook shots and blown finishes around the rim. His inability to secure the defensive glass allowed crucial second-chance points that swung momentum. The steep drop-off in his usual interior finishing made him an offensive liability in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 16.2m -7.7
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

While he showed flashes of spot-up confidence, poor rotational awareness on the defensive end kept his impact in the negative. He struggled to navigate off-ball screens, frequently losing his man and conceding open perimeter looks. The moderate scoring bump wasn't enough to offset the structural defensive leaks he caused.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -45.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 25.3m -12.1
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-20.7

A catastrophic shooting slump completely cratered his value, as he repeatedly forced contested looks early in the shot clock. Without his perimeter shots falling, he became a glaring target on the defensive end where bigger guards bullied him. The combination of empty offensive trips and defensive mismatches led to a disastrous net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -37.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense -8.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total -9.2
Avg player in 24.2m -11.5
Impact -20.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Settling for contested pick-and-pop jumpers rather than punishing mismatches inside severely damaged his offensive output. The resulting long misses sparked opponent fast breaks, negating his otherwise solid positional defense. A lack of vertical spacing and poor shot selection ultimately weighed down his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -32.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 16.8m -8.0
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 15.6m
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Over-passing and a reluctance to look at the rim allowed defenders to completely ignore him in the half-court. This extreme passivity clogged the driving lanes for the primary creators. Without any disruptive defensive events to balance the scales, his offensive hesitation resulted in a net negative shift.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 2.8%
Net Rtg -42.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 15.6m -7.5
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 15.0m
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Efficient interior finishing was ultimately overshadowed by his struggles to defend in space. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in high pick-and-rolls, exploiting his lack of lateral quickness to generate easy looks. The steady offensive production simply couldn't outpace the points bled on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -32.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 15.0m -7.1
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Looked entirely out of sync with the offensive flow, floating around the perimeter without setting meaningful screens or cutting with purpose. His lack of physical engagement on either end of the floor resulted in a stagnant lineup during his minutes. Failing to register any hustle plays or defensive stops made this a highly detrimental cameo.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -39.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Offense -2.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.6
Avg player in 7.0m -3.3
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Miles Bridges 30.9m
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.8

Settling for contested perimeter looks completely derailed his offensive rhythm, leading to a sharp drop in his usual efficiency. The resulting empty possessions stalled out the half-court offense and negated his adequate defensive positioning. He simply couldn't find his spots against the opposing wing length.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.4%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +39.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 30.9m -14.8
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kon Knueppel 30.8m
20
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

Capitalized on spot-up opportunities to provide a reliable scoring punch, though his overall impact was muted by occasional defensive lapses off the ball. His high-quality shot selection from beyond the arc kept the spacing intact. However, late-game rotational mistakes prevented his stellar shooting from translating into a dominant net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +39.6
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.6
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 30.8m -14.6
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Moussa Diabaté 29.1m
9
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+14.5

Relentless activity in the paint and exceptional defensive anchoring drove a massive positive rating. He dominated the interior without needing offensive touches, acting as a premier connective playmaker out of the post. His timely weak-side rotations completely shut off the opponent's driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.6
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 29.1m -13.9
Impact +14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Brandon Miller 27.1m
18
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.6

Elite two-way execution defined this outing, fueled by aggressive closeouts and high-motor transition play. He consistently generated high-percentage looks by attacking closeouts with purpose. The combination of hyper-efficient scoring and disruptive perimeter defense made him a dominant force whenever he stepped on the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 69.2%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +24.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense +6.5
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 27.1m -12.9
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S LaMelo Ball 23.3m
18
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.2

A heavy diet of forced pull-up jumpers capped his overall effectiveness despite a flashy offensive output. His playmaking gravity opened up the floor, but defensive apathy and a lack of off-ball movement limited his true impact. The tendency to hunt highlight plays over making the simple read kept his net rating grounded.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 52.9%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg +19.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.2
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 23.3m -11.1
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Green 20.6m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.0

Pure energy and grit salvaged a quiet offensive night, as he fully embraced a dirty-work role. His relentless ball pressure and knack for securing loose balls generated crucial extra possessions. Even without taking many shots, his high-level perimeter containment provided a steadying presence.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +4.6
Defense +3.9
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 20.6m -9.8
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Coby White 19.8m
17
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+11.1

Surgical precision in the pick-and-roll allowed him to carve up the drop coverage for a highly efficient scoring burst. He maximized his minutes by making quick, decisive reads rather than over-dribbling. This sharp shot selection and steady point-of-attack defense resulted in a stellar plus-minus.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.0%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +48.6
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.2
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 19.8m -9.4
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Sion James 17.0m
6
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.0

Errant perimeter shooting stalled the second unit's momentum and dragged down his overall rating. While he managed to stay connected on defense, the inability to punish defensive closeouts made him an offensive liability. Opponents sagged off him completely, clogging the driving lanes for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +39.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 17.0m -8.1
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.6

Imposing rim protection completely altered the opponent's shot profile during his brief stint on the floor. He capitalized on every offensive look by rolling hard to the basket and finishing through contact. This flawless execution of his specific role yielded an outsized positive influence on the game.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +48.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.9
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 14.3m -6.8
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.5

Despite clanking several wide-open corner looks, veteran savvy and constant off-ball motion kept his impact firmly in the green. He made up for the shooting woes by crashing the glass and blowing up dribble handoffs on the perimeter. His willingness to sacrifice his body on screens created multiple easy looks for teammates.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 13.6m -6.4
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.7

A brief but flawless cameo provided a quick jolt of spacing for the bench lineup. He executed his assignments perfectly, draining his only look and staying disciplined in the defensive shell. This zero-mistake approach ensured his short shift was a net positive.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +62.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense +4.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 4.6m -2.2
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Blended completely into the background during a forgettable rotation stint. He failed to assert himself physically in the paint, allowing opponents to dictate the tempo. A lack of offensive involvement and passive rim deterrence left him with a slightly negative footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +62.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 4.6m -2.2
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Tre Mann 4.3m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Forced the issue immediately upon checking in, resulting in empty possessions that killed the team's momentum. His rushed shot selection against set defenses led to long rebounds and opponent transition opportunities. The erratic offensive approach completely overshadowed his adequate defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 44.4%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense -4.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total -2.2
Avg player in 4.3m -2.1
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1