GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 35.1m
32
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.7

Brutalized smaller defenders with a steady diet of physical drives and decisive mid-range pull-ups. By consciously abandoning the three-point line in favor of attacking the paint, he generated constant defensive collapses. This aggressive downhill mentality dictated the terms of the game and drove a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.8%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg +31.1
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 35.1m -18.9
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Derrick White 31.4m
11
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Phenomenal screen navigation and point-of-attack disruption (+8.7 Def) were largely undone by a cold night from beyond the arc. He generated excellent looks within the flow of the offense but repeatedly clanked wide-open corner threes. The resulting empty possessions neutralized the immense value he provided on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +8.7
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 31.4m -17.0
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jayson Tatum 30.9m
24
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

Heavy reliance on isolation three-pointers yielded solid scoring volume but disrupted the overall offensive rhythm. While he hit several tough contested jumpers, the lack of rim pressure allowed the defense to stay set and avoid foul trouble. A few lazy closeouts on the other end ultimately dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +27.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.9
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 30.9m -16.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Neemias Queta 28.1m
8
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.3

Relentless activity on the offensive glass and high-motor rim runs defined a highly productive shift. He consistently beat opposing bigs down the floor, generating early post position and creating second-chance opportunities (+4.2 Hustle). This blue-collar approach perfectly complemented the perimeter-heavy playstyle of the primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +29.7
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 28.1m -15.2
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sam Hauser 20.7m
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.0

Uncharacteristic struggles to find open space on the perimeter severely limited his offensive utility. Opponents aggressively top-sided his screens, forcing him into contested catch-and-shoot situations that failed to connect. Without his usual gravity warping the defense, his presence on the floor resulted in a stagnant half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 20.7m -11.3
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
19
pts
0
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.1

Injected crucial pace into the second unit by constantly pushing the ball off defensive rebounds. He expertly manipulated drop coverage in the pick-and-roll, finding the exact right balance between his own floater and hitting the roll man. This decisive decision-making kept the offense humming efficiently during his extended minutes.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +46.0
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 30.6m -16.6
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.2

Despite commendable effort tracking down loose balls (+3.8 Hustle), his inability to threaten the defense offensively proved costly. He was far too passive when catching the ball on the perimeter, allowing the defense to completely ignore him and overload the strong side. The resulting spacing issues bogged down the half-court execution and led to a negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg +21.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 24.5m -13.3
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Luka Garza 17.6m
15
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+17.5

Absolutely dominated his matchup through sheer physicality and textbook post footwork. He carved out massive space on the interior, punishing switches and finishing through contact with remarkable efficiency. Combined with surprisingly stout rim protection (+8.0 Def), this was a masterclass in maximizing backup center minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +4.6
Defense +8.0
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 17.6m -9.5
Impact +17.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Looked rushed and out of sync during a brief rotational appearance, forcing a pair of ill-advised shots early in the clock. He struggled to process defensive rotations, leading to dead-end drives that stalled the offense. The lack of offensive poise outweighed his generally sound defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 9.7m -5.2
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

Failed to make a positive mark during a short stint, primarily due to settling for contested jumpers instead of moving the ball. His lack of burst off the dribble allowed defenders to easily stay in front of him, resulting in wasted possessions. The offense visibly stagnated while he was on the floor trying to find his rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -66.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 6.7m -3.6
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Max Shulga 2.2m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

A disastrous two-minute cameo where a rushed perimeter attempt and poor transition defense immediately put the team in a hole. He looked completely overwhelmed by the game's speed, getting blown by on the perimeter almost instantly. The coaching staff had to pull him quickly after he bled points in rapid succession.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.5
Raw total -3.6
Avg player in 2.2m -1.2
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Made the most of a tiny garbage-time window by executing a hard dive to the rim for an easy finish. He stayed disciplined in his brief defensive assignments, avoiding the foul trouble that sometimes plagues his game. A perfectly functional, mistake-free cameo to close out the rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 2.2m -1.2
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
S Draymond Green 32.0m
13
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.9

An uncharacteristic reliance on the three-ball yielded mixed results, masking a disjointed offensive flow. Despite exceeding his usual scoring expectations, his overall impact slipped into the red due to empty possessions and missed reads in the half-court. His defensive anchoring (+5.2) wasn't enough to offset the offensive stagnation when he operated outside his traditional playmaking hub.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 32.0m -17.3
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Gui Santos 28.1m
13
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.6

A stark departure from his recent efficient scoring streak, as poor perimeter shot selection cratered his offensive value. While his defensive rotations remained sharp (+5.3 Def), clanking multiple open threes allowed the defense to sag and clog the paint. The inability to stretch the floor ultimately neutralized his hustle contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.8%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 28.1m -15.2
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
10
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.2

Offensive value plummeted due to a severe inability to connect from deep, breaking a recent string of highly efficient outings. The constant misfires from beyond the arc allowed defenders to cheat off him, bogging down the half-court spacing. He tried to supplement with rebounding and hustle, but the sheer number of squandered scoring chances dominated his overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.3%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 27.8m -15.0
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.5

A disastrous perimeter shooting display severely hampered the offense, resulting in empty trips and transition opportunities for the opponent. He consistently settled for contested outside looks rather than attacking closeouts, stalling the team's momentum. Even his usually reliable point-of-attack defense couldn't compensate for the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 23.4m -12.6
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

Elite rim protection and paint deterrence (+10.5 Def) completely salvaged a brutal shooting performance. He forced several bad mid-range looks that dragged down his offensive efficiency, but his sheer length disrupted the opponent's entire interior gameplan. The defensive gravity he provided more than made up for his struggles to find an offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.3%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +10.5
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 22.5m -12.2
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
Will Richard 25.1m
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

Solid defensive positioning (+5.2 Def) kept him playable, but a complete inability to stretch the floor limited his overall effectiveness. Defenders routinely ignored him on the perimeter after early misfires, which complicated the team's driving lanes. He needs to convert those catch-and-shoot opportunities to justify the extended minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.2
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 25.1m -13.6
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+19.4

Absolute dominance in the margins defined this stint, combining relentless point-of-attack defense with brilliant off-ball cutting. He perfectly exploited the dunker spot, converting high-percentage looks at the rim to punish over-helping defenders. This two-way clinic generated massive positive momentum every time he stepped on the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -41.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +8.8
Raw total +30.7
Avg player in 20.8m -11.3
Impact +19.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
Quinten Post 20.5m
6
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.3

Operated mostly on the periphery of the offense, failing to assert himself physically in the paint. While he didn't force bad shots, his lack of aggression allowed the opposing frontcourt to dictate the tempo. A few missed box-outs in crucial moments tipped his overall contribution into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -56.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 20.5m -11.0
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Pat Spencer 20.4m
14
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Surpassed his usual scoring expectations by finding soft spots in the midrange, but gave the value back on the other end of the floor. Defensive lapses and mistimed rotations kept his overall impact slightly in the red despite the offensive surge. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, allowing the opposition to match his scoring output too easily.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 20.4m -11.0
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

A highly damaging brief appearance characterized by complete offensive invisibility and poor spatial awareness. He failed to register any meaningful defensive resistance, frequently getting lost on back-door cuts. The game simply moved too fast for him during this stint, resulting in a steep negative swing in under ten minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -46.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total -2.6
Avg player in 9.9m -5.4
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.5

Provided a highly effective burst of interior energy, capitalizing on quick post seals to generate easy offense. He established deep position early in the shot clock, forcing the defense to collapse and creating immediate high-percentage looks. A perfect example of maximizing limited run through sheer physical assertion.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 5.0m -2.8
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.9

Shifted away from his normally heavy scoring load to focus entirely on connective passing and defensive positioning. He didn't force a single attempt from the field, instead using his gravity to keep the offensive flow moving. This disciplined, low-mistake approach yielded a solid positive swing in a very short window.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 4.6m -2.4
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0