GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 39.5m
41
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+19.4

A dominant two-way clinic where aggressive downhill drives and stifling point-of-attack defense drove a massive positive rating. He completely overwhelmed his primary matchups, generating high-quality looks while simultaneously blowing up opponent actions. The sheer volume of successful plays vastly outweighed his missed shots, resulting in an elite overall impact.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 19/21 (90.5%)
Advanced
TS% 70.1%
USG% 36.2%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +27.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.7
Raw total +40.8
Avg player in 39.5m -21.4
Impact +19.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Neemias Queta 33.1m
5
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.5

Despite excellent hustle metrics and solid rim deterrence, a steep penalty from likely turnovers and foul trouble pushed his total deep into the red. He struggled with defensive discipline, biting on pump fakes and giving away cheap points at the line. The underlying mistakes completely overshadowed his highly efficient finishing around the basket.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.1
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 33.1m -17.9
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jayson Tatum 32.3m
21
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.0

Ten missed field goals and a heavy diet of contested perimeter shots severely suppressed what could have been a dominant impact score. He settled for tough isolation looks against set defenses rather than attacking the rim. While his defensive rebounding and switchability kept him in the positive, the offensive inefficiency was a major drag.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +19.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 32.3m -17.4
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Derrick White 29.4m
21
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.2

Eight missed field goals and likely a string of costly turnovers dragged his net impact negative despite a strong scoring surge. He forced several heavily contested threes early in the shot clock, disrupting the team's offensive rhythm. The defensive metrics couldn't salvage a rating weighed down by inefficient volume and poor ball security.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 29.4m -16.0
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Sam Hauser 23.2m
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.5

A severe lack of offensive involvement and missed perimeter looks absolutely cratered his overall impact score. Without his usual floor-spacing gravity, the offense bogged down significantly during his minutes. The massive negative rating reflects unseen errors, likely defensive miscommunications or costly fouls, compounding his shooting woes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 23.2m -12.5
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
19
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.1

Relentless energy and elite hustle plays kept his head above water, offsetting the damage from seven missed shots. He consistently extended possessions with loose ball recoveries, acting as the engine for the second unit. The positive score is a testament to his sheer activity level overcoming some questionable shot selection.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +6.5
Defense +1.2
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 37.2m -20.1
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Perfect shooting execution and disciplined defensive rotations pushed his impact score into positive territory. He capitalized on every opportunity, moving fluidly off the ball to find soft spots in the zone. This was a highly efficient, mistake-free performance that perfectly complemented the primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 133.3%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 25.9m -14.0
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 11.3m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

A failure to establish interior dominance and likely defensive liabilities in space resulted in a negative overall showing. Opponents easily navigated around him in pick-and-roll coverage, exposing his lack of lateral quickness. The brief stint snapped a highly efficient streak, as he couldn't find the game's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 11.3m -6.1
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

A disastrously short stint was marred by empty possessions and defensive confusion that tanked his net rating. He looked completely out of sync with the offensive sets, failing to generate any meaningful gravity. The steep negative score in just eight minutes points to costly mistakes, likely quick fouls or blown assignments.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 8.0m -4.3
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 37.4m
40
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.2

A massive scoring outburst was heavily penalized in the final impact calculation by nine missed field goals and probable turnover issues while initiating the offense. He carried the primary scoring burden effectively, but defensive lapses against off-ball cutters kept his overall rating grounded. The sheer volume of his offensive load kept him in the green, though efficiency leaks prevented a monster overall score.

Shooting
FG 15/24 (62.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 38.5%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +21.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.3
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 37.4m -20.2
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 7
S Jalen Green 33.4m
21
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

Impact was severely dragged down by a dozen missed shots and likely a slew of live-ball turnovers that erased his scoring volume. His inability to find a rhythm from beyond the arc stalled out offensive momentum during crucial third-quarter stretches. The negative final score reflects a high-usage performance that ultimately gave too many empty possessions back to the opponent.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.3%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 33.4m -18.0
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Oso Ighodaro 32.6m
4
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+4.1

Tremendous defensive rotations and high-end hustle metrics drove a highly positive impact despite a sharp drop in offensive usage. He acted as a vital connective piece, generating extra possessions through deflections and well-timed screen assists. The low shot volume was a feature rather than a bug, as he deferred to better matchups while completely locking down the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +5.0
Defense +6.6
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 32.6m -17.6
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

Brick after brick from the perimeter tanked his offensive value and dragged his net impact into the basement. Even though he scrapped hard on defense and generated positive hustle numbers, the empty offensive possessions were simply too costly. His inability to punish drop coverage allowed the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 18.8%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +2.6
Defense +4.8
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 22.6m -12.3
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Royce O'Neale 18.7m
6
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.5

Despite solid defensive metrics, his overall value dipped into the red due to an invisible offensive footprint and probable foul trouble. Passing up open looks disrupted the floor spacing, forcing teammates into late-clock isolation situations. A lack of scoring punch compared to his recent averages meant his defensive stops couldn't offset the offensive drag.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.7
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 18.7m -10.2
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
6
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.2

A balanced defensive effort was nullified by poor shot selection and likely careless ball-handling that dragged his total impact down. Forcing contested mid-range jumpers rather than moving the ball stalled the half-court offense. He provided solid point-of-attack pressure, but the offensive inefficiency proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 23.7m -12.9
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Defensive lapses and a failure to generate secondary hustle stats completely undermined a decent perimeter shooting display. Opponents actively targeted him in pick-and-roll switches, bleeding points that erased his offensive contributions. The negative overall score highlights how much he gave back on the defensive end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 21.7m -11.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.9

Elite shot selection and pristine perimeter execution fueled a massively positive overall impact. He capitalized perfectly on defensive breakdowns, punishing closeouts without forcing bad looks or turning the ball over. This was a masterclass in role-player efficiency, blending timely shooting with disciplined, mistake-free defense.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 18.7m -10.2
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

An absolute non-factor on offense, his total rating suffered heavily from empty trips and an inability to stretch the floor. While his defensive positioning was fundamentally sound, the lack of any scoring threat allowed the defense to play five-on-four. The steep drop-off from his usual production left a noticeable void in the second unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.4
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 14.8m -8.1
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

A quiet stint was defined by solid rim protection that kept his defensive rating afloat, but zero offensive gravity pulled his total score slightly negative. He struggled to establish deep post position, leading to a completely neutralized scoring threat. The brief appearance was ultimately a wash, characterized by missed rotations on the defensive glass.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -44.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 12.3m -6.6
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

A brief, cardio-heavy stint yielded almost zero statistical production, leaving his net impact slightly in the red due to baseline penalties. He failed to register any meaningful actions on either end of the floor during his short run. The negative score is simply the result of occupying space without generating any positive events.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 4.1m -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