GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 35.7m
15
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Phenomenal point-of-attack defense (+9.7 Def) and relentless hustle plays kept his impact positive despite a streaky shooting night. He navigated screens masterfully to blow up opponent sets, offsetting the damage from his four missed three-pointers. His ability to generate deflections and secure loose balls provided crucial extra possessions in tight windows.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +5.5
Defense +9.7
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 35.7m -17.9
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jaylen Brown 35.3m
29
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.0

Massive shot volume masked a highly inefficient offensive outing that ultimately dragged his net impact into the red. Wasting 17 possessions on missed field goals completely derailed the team's half-court rhythm and fed opponent transition opportunities. While the raw scoring totals look impressive, the poor shot selection actively hurt the overall offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 9/26 (34.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 38.2%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 35.3m -17.7
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jayson Tatum 30.7m
16
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.2

Elite defensive engagement (+8.3 Def) salvaged his impact score on a night where his jumper refused to fall. Clanking 10 shots dragged down his offensive efficiency, but his willingness to crash the glass and contest on the perimeter kept the team afloat. He weaponized his length to disrupt passing lanes when his scoring touch abandoned him.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +8.3
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 30.7m -15.4
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 26.9m
4
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.2

Imposing rim protection and active interior defense (+7.2 Def) fueled a highly positive showing despite a sharp drop in scoring volume. He sacrificed his own touches to focus on screening and sealing, opening up the perimeter for his guards. His physical presence in the paint deterred countless drives, proving his worth goes far beyond finishing lobs.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.2
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 26.9m -13.6
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sam Hauser 18.9m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

A sudden freeze in his perimeter shooting derailed his usually reliable floor-spacing value. Missing all three attempts from beyond the arc allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for the primary creators. Despite decent hustle metrics, his inability to punish closeouts resulted in a negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 18.9m -9.5
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.5

Passive offensive involvement allowed defenders to ignore him, dragging his overall impact into negative territory. Refusing to attack closeouts forced his teammates to play into loaded defensive coverages. Even with solid defensive rotations (+4.0 Def), his reluctance to pull the trigger crippled the floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 28.6m -14.2
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.6

A sharp regression in shooting efficiency completely neutralized his bench scoring punch, resulting in a damaging -5.6 total impact. Missing seven shots stunted second-unit runs and allowed the defense to aggressively trap the ball-handlers. Without his usual perimeter gravity, the offensive spacing collapsed during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -18.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.1
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 27.4m -13.6
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Luka Garza 17.4m
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

A sudden loss of touch around the basket snapped his highly efficient streak and tipped his impact slightly into the red. Forcing contested looks inside led to five misses, stalling out possessions that normally result in easy points. He failed to establish deep post position, allowing the defense to easily contest his hooks and layups.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 17.4m -8.7
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.0

An absolute void on the offensive end resulted in a devastating -9.0 total impact during his rotation minutes. Missing all of his attempts and failing to generate any rim pressure allowed the opposition to completely ignore him in the half-court. The team bled points during his stints because they were essentially operating 4-on-5.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 13.9m -7.0
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Max Shulga 1.8m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.9

Maximized a tiny window of garbage time by immediately attacking the basket and drawing contact. Converting his lone shot attempt and capitalizing on the ensuing free throws spiked his per-minute impact metrics. It was a flawless, hyper-efficient cameo to close out the final buzzer.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +200.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense +5.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 1.8m -0.9
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.7

Immediate defensive activity (+3.2 Def) in the closing moments generated a massive positive swing in his limited run. He walled off the paint effectively and converted a quick bucket, showcasing his reliable interior presence. A highly productive burst of energy that padded the team's closing metrics.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +200.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 1.8m -0.8
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

A missed jumper during mop-up duty accounted for his slightly negative total impact. He continues to struggle finding the range during these end-of-bench appearances. The brief stint offered no real chance to affect the competitive portion of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +200.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 1.8m -0.9
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Jaden McDaniels 32.7m
19
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.0

Tremendous hustle metrics (+6.9) kept his overall impact in the green despite a slight dip in his recent shooting efficiency. His relentless perimeter tracking generated extra possessions that offset the empty trips from his 10 missed field goals. He maintained his aggressive rhythm from the wing to keep the defense rotating.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +6.9
Defense +4.1
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 32.7m -16.4
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ayo Dosunmu 32.2m
17
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.8

Two-way stability defined this performance, blending efficient shot creation with highly disruptive point-of-attack defense (+7.0 Def). He consistently beat the first line of defense to collapse the paint, maintaining the strong scoring form he has shown over the last week. Those timely drives and smart rotations resulted in a rock-solid +6.8 overall impact.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.2%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +3.2
Defense +7.0
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 32.2m -16.2
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.0

Cold perimeter shooting continues to plague his offensive profile, dragging his total impact down to a concerning -10.0. Missing five threes killed crucial momentum swings and prevented the floor from opening up for his teammates. Even with passable defensive metrics, the lack of scoring punch from the wing proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 30.7m -15.4
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Julius Randle 29.1m
9
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.0

A brutal shooting night completely cratered his net impact (-10.0) after a stretch of highly efficient offensive outings. Clanking 11 shots stalled the half-court offense and allowed the opponent to leak out in transition. While he managed to salvage some value through defensive positioning (+5.4 Def), the offensive drop-off was too steep to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense -4.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.4
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 29.1m -14.7
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Rudy Gobert 26.3m
9
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+17.1

Absolute dominance in the painted area drove a massive +17.1 total impact score. Elite rim protection and defensive anchoring (+12.8 Def) completely erased opponent drives and forced them into low-percentage jumpers. He didn't need high usage to control the game, thriving purely as a lob threat and defensive deterrent.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +12.8
Raw total +30.5
Avg player in 26.3m -13.4
Impact +17.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 40.9%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 0
Bones Hyland 29.4m
23
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.7

An explosive scoring surge completely flipped his recent slump and fueled a stellar +17.5 box score impact. He found his rhythm early, taking high-quality shots in flow rather than forcing contested looks late in the clock. This sudden offensive eruption provided a massive spark off the bench that the opponent simply couldn't contain.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +41.9
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 29.4m -14.7
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Naz Reid 25.7m
11
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

Inefficient volume from the floor resulted in a negative overall impact (-5.2) despite decent defensive positioning. Clanking eight shots, including three misses from deep, short-circuited several offensive possessions and allowed the defense to pack the paint. He continues to struggle finding the bottom of the net during this recent cold snap.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +50.4
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 25.7m -12.9
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.8

Masterful connective play in limited minutes generated a highly efficient +5.8 total impact. He picked his spots perfectly on offense, breaking out of a recent shooting funk by only taking what the defense conceded. His methodical pacing stabilized the second unit during a crucial second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +39.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 16.0m -7.9
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaylen Clark 12.5m
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

A complete lack of offensive involvement rendered him a non-factor on that end of the floor, pulling his total impact into the red. Refusing to take a single shot allowed his defender to freely roam and clog passing lanes. While his defensive energy (+3.6) remained a bright spot, playing 4-on-5 offensively was too detrimental.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.6%
Net Rtg +20.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 12.5m -6.3
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Brief garbage-time minutes offered no opportunity to register positive statistical value. A slight defensive lapse (-0.8) during this closing stint accounted for the minor negative impact score. He simply served as a warm body to run out the final seconds of the clock.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.4m -0.6
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

A rushed, missed shot during an incredibly brief cameo drove his impact score slightly into the negative. There wasn't enough runway to establish any rhythm or replicate his recent high-efficiency flashes. The appearance was purely procedural to close out the contest.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 1.4m -0.7
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Inserted solely for the final 82 seconds, he essentially ran wind sprints without recording a single tangible stat. The fractional negative impact is merely a byproduct of the team losing the micro-minutes he was on the floor. He had zero opportunity to influence the actual outcome.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.4m -0.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Logged purely ceremonial minutes at the tail end of the game, resulting in a completely empty statistical profile. The minor negative total impact reflects the opponent scoring during his brief time on the court. He was deployed strictly for clock management purposes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.4m -0.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0