GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 38.9m
31
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
+9.4

Relentless downhill attacking and superb finishing through contact were the primary engines behind his massive positive impact. He identified and exploited mismatch opportunities on the wing, consistently bullying smaller defenders to reach his spots. Active hands in the passing lanes further amplified his value by igniting several fast-break sequences.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 12/14 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.9%
USG% 32.6%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +19.3
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +27.8
Avg player in 38.9m -18.4
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jayson Tatum 35.4m
19
pts
12
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.0

Elite weak-side rim protection and switchability drove a highly positive defensive rating, anchoring the team's half-court scheme. Even though his perimeter jumper wasn't falling consistently, he compensated by drawing fouls and utilizing his gravity to create driving lanes for teammates. His physical rebounding in traffic repeatedly snuffed out opponent second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.9%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +10.6
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 35.4m -16.6
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 5
S Derrick White 33.1m
12
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.9

A string of uncharacteristic missed floaters and errant perimeter shots deeply cut into his overall effectiveness. While he maintained his usual standard of point-of-attack defense, his inability to capitalize on wide-open spot-up opportunities bogged down the half-court offense. The resulting empty trips frequently put the transition defense at a numerical disadvantage.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 33.1m -15.5
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 29.9m
13
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

Dominating the interior with decisive rim-runs and hard screens created a reliable vertical threat that collapsed the defense. He consistently sealed his man early in transition, generating high-percentage looks right at the basket. This physical interior presence forced the opposition to commit extra bodies to the paint, opening up the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 29.9m -14.0
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Sam Hauser 28.6m
9
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock severely damaged his overall efficiency and offensive flow. Opposing defenders successfully ran him off the three-point line, exposing his limitations when forced to put the ball on the deck. These empty possessions allowed the opposition to leak out and generate easy transition points.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 28.6m -13.5
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

Giving up too much ground against bigger guards in the post heavily penalized his overall impact rating. Despite providing a spark with his deep perimeter shooting, he was repeatedly targeted on switches, forcing the defense to over-help and concede open corner threes. Those structural defensive breakdowns ultimately outweighed his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 32.9m -15.5
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Capitalizing on defensive miscommunications allowed him to find open pockets on the perimeter and drill timely momentum-swinging shots. His decisive catch-and-shoot execution punished opponents who dared to help off him in the corners. By staying within his role and avoiding forced actions, he delivered a highly efficient offensive shift.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +28.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 19.8m -9.4
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 11.9m
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Heavy feet in pick-and-roll coverage allowed opposing ball-handlers to consistently walk into uncontested pull-up jumpers, dragging his impact into the red. Even though he showed excellent touch around the basket on offense, his inability to protect the rim or recover to shooters proved costly. Opponents actively spaced him out to neutralize his interior strengths.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.6
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 11.9m -5.7
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Smart off-ball spacing and attentive defensive rotations yielded a modest but positive impact during his brief stint. He executed the offensive scheme without demanding touches, keeping the ball moving and avoiding costly mistakes. This low-maintenance reliability provided valuable stability for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 9.5m -4.5
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
33
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+17.0

Surgical precision in isolation sets generated an astronomical impact rating, as he systematically dismantled primary defenders. His ability to dictate the pace and draw fouls in the clutch completely demoralized the opposing defense. Masterful shot selection ensured virtually no wasted possessions during his heavy workload.

Shooting
FG 10/12 (83.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 95.5%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +29.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +34.2
Avg player in 37.0m -17.2
Impact +17.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Chet Holmgren 25.7m
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Despite solid rim protection and hustle metrics, his overall impact slipped into the red due to costly live-ball turnovers. He struggled to anchor the drop coverage against high pick-and-rolls, allowing guards to turn the corner too easily. Those defensive lapses in space negated his otherwise efficient interior finishing.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 25.7m -12.0
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Williams 23.6m
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.1

A stark drop in scoring efficiency cratered his overall impact, as he settled for contested jumpers instead of attacking the paint. Clanking his perimeter attempts completely neutralized his usually reliable offensive gravity. This inability to find a rhythm stalled Oklahoma City's half-court execution whenever he initiated the offense.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.5%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 23.6m -11.1
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.1

Elite defensive positioning and relentless activity on the glass drove a massive positive impact score. He completely shut off the paint during his shifts, consistently blowing up dribble hand-offs before they could develop. This high-motor performance provided a crucial stabilizing presence for the interior defense.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +8.6
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 22.3m -10.5
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Luguentz Dort 21.6m
14
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.8

Exceptional perimeter shot-making and relentless screen navigation fueled a highly productive two-way performance. By punishing defensive drop coverages with timely corner triples, he forced opponents to completely alter their rotation schemes. His elite point-of-attack pressure set a physical tone that disrupted the opposing backcourt's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +6.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 21.6m -10.2
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.4

Defensive liabilities at the point of attack heavily dragged down his overall rating, as opposing guards repeatedly blew past him in isolation. Even though he generated some positive momentum through transition hustle plays, it wasn't enough to offset his struggles navigating ball screens. Poor closeout angles consistently put the rest of the defense in rotation.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense -0.3
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 25.4m -12.1
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Passive offensive tendencies and a reluctance to attack closeouts resulted in a slightly negative overall grade. While his weak-side defensive rotations were crisp, he frequently stalled the offensive flow by passing up open looks. This hesitation allowed the defense to reset, neutralizing the advantage created by initial drive-and-kicks.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.9
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 24.3m -11.4
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Alex Caruso 21.2m
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.4

Constant defensive harassment and loose-ball recoveries kept his overall impact slightly positive despite a brutal shooting night. Clanking numerous wide-open spot-up attempts severely limited his offensive value and allowed defenders to sag into the paint. His relentless ball pressure ultimately salvaged a shift that was otherwise marred by poor perimeter execution.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.9%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -24.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 21.2m -10.0
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

A lack of overall involvement during his brief stint on the floor suppressed his impact metrics. He struggled to establish deep post position and was frequently pushed off his spots by more physical matchups. Failing to secure contested defensive rebounds ultimately gave the opposition crucial second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 13.7m -6.4
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jared McCain 12.9m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Decisive cuts and high-energy off-ball movement translated into a solid positive impact during his limited minutes. He consistently beat his man to long rebounds, generating extra possessions that kept the offense humming. This opportunistic playstyle maximized his value without requiring heavy usage.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -71.2
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 12.9m -6.1
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 12.2m
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Being targeted relentlessly on the defensive end completely tanked his impact score during a short rotation. Opponents actively hunted him in mismatch post-ups, forcing defensive collapses that led to easy kick-out threes. His limited offensive touches couldn't compensate for the structural damage his defensive presence caused.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -33.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -2.2
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 12.2m -5.7
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0