GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Jayson Tatum 36.6m
26
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.2

Brutal shot selection and a heavy diet of isolation clanks nearly submarined his night, but elite defensive rebounding salvaged a positive score. He bailed out the opposition by settling for contested mid-range jumpers early in the clock. However, his ability to secure the defensive glass prevented second-chance points and stabilized the team.

Shooting
FG 8/24 (33.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.0
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 36.6m -16.0
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Derrick White 34.2m
10
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-12.8

An abysmal perimeter shooting night completely unraveled his offensive value, as defenders sagged off him to pack the paint. He compounded the missed jumpers by forcing difficult passes into traffic, leading to live-ball turnovers that ignited opponent fast breaks. Without his usual point-of-attack defensive dominance to compensate, his net impact cratered.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.9%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 34.2m -15.0
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Sam Hauser 29.0m
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.2

Hidden within a decent shooting line is a severe lack of off-ball activity that tanked his overall rating. He failed to create gravity as a floor spacer, often standing stagnant and allowing help defenders to clog the driving lanes. A completely neutral defensive presence meant he couldn't claw back value when the offense bogged down.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.0
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 29.0m -12.7
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

High-energy closeouts and loose ball recoveries couldn't mask his extreme passivity on offense. He routinely passed up open catch-and-shoot opportunities, short-circuiting ball movement and forcing teammates into late-clock grenades. His reluctance to punish defensive gaps ultimately dragged his overall impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +4.1
Defense +0.5
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 28.1m -12.3
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 27.6m
5
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.2

Despite dominating the glass and showing excellent defensive awareness, his complete refusal to look at the rim crippled the team's half-court spacing. Defenders blatantly ignored him in the dunker spot, which choked off driving lanes for the primary creators. The resulting offensive stagnation heavily outweighed his solid rim protection.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.0
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 27.6m -12.0
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
36
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.9

Absolute flamethrowing from beyond the arc shattered the opponent's drop coverage and drove a massive positive impact. He relentlessly punished defenders for going under screens, bending the entire defensive geometry to his will. His elite shot-making efficiency completely dictated the tempo and masked any minor defensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 13/23 (56.5%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 38.0%
Net Rtg +38.5
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +24.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 34.5m -15.2
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
Jordan Walsh 27.5m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Disciplined positional defense and timely weak-side rotations drove a quietly effective performance. He rarely gambled for steals, instead focusing on walling off the baseline and executing flawless switches on the perimeter. This low-mistake, high-IQ approach kept the defensive shell intact while he capitalized on his few offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 4.7%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 27.5m -12.0
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
Luka Garza 15.1m
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.9

Surgical efficiency in the pick-and-pop game shredded the opposing second unit and spiked his net rating. He set bruising screens to free up ball handlers before confidently stepping into open space to punish defensive miscommunications. This offensive clinic, combined with sturdy post positioning, made him a massive plus in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.5%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.8
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 15.1m -6.6
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

A brief rotational stint yielded slightly negative returns due to a lack of physical presence on the defensive end. He was easily displaced on screens, forcing teammates into emergency rotations that compromised the scheme. Perfect shooting efficiency wasn't enough to offset his struggles in navigating pick-and-roll coverage.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +71.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 7.4m -3.3
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
20
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.9

Relentless energy plays and loose-ball recoveries formed the backbone of a stellar two-way performance. He consistently blew up opponent handoffs on the perimeter, turning defensive stops into early-clock transition opportunities. Even with a slight dip from his recent scorching scoring pace, his high-IQ shot selection kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +7.5
Defense +3.1
Raw total +26.6
Avg player in 38.4m -16.7
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Onyeka Okongwu 37.7m
8
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.3

A severe lack of offensive assertiveness dragged his overall net rating into the red. While he battled admirably on the glass to generate extra possessions, his reluctance to challenge defenders in the paint crippled the team's interior spacing. He essentially became a non-threat in the pick-and-roll, allowing the defense to cheat off him and clog the lane.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.4
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 37.7m -16.6
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Johnson 36.6m
29
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.7

An aggressive perimeter approach completely unlocked his massive positive impact tonight. By confidently stepping into above-the-break threes, he forced defensive closeouts that created secondary driving lanes for his teammates. His two-way versatility was on full display, pairing high-end shot creation with excellent rotational defense.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.3%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.2
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 36.6m -16.1
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S CJ McCollum 33.7m
21
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

Inefficient shot hunting from beyond the arc ultimately neutralized his scoring output. He settled for heavily contested pull-ups early in the shot clock, which stunted the team's offensive flow and led to empty trips. A lack of meaningful defensive resistance further eroded his overall value, leaving his net impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.2%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.4
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 33.7m -14.7
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Dyson Daniels 32.2m
6
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.4

Despite a sharp drop in his usual scoring volume, his overall impact remained positive due to stifling perimeter defense. He generated massive value on the less glamorous end of the floor, racking up deflections and contesting shots at a high level. His offensive passivity was entirely masked by an elite defensive rating that anchored the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.6
Defense +8.1
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 32.2m -14.1
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.4

An inability to finish around the rim or connect from deep resulted in a heavily negative impact score. He forced several drives into traffic rather than moving the ball, leading to stalled possessions and transition opportunities going the other way. Despite decent defensive positioning, his offensive struggles rendered him a liability in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 22.2%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -37.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 18.1m -7.9
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Defensive lapses on the perimeter dragged down what was otherwise an efficient offensive cameo. He repeatedly lost his man on backdoor cuts and struggled to navigate screens, giving back whatever value he created with his shot-making. The negative defensive rating tells the story of a player targeted by the opposing scheme.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -57.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.6
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 13.8m -6.0
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gabe Vincent 12.4m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Short minutes were maximized by an absolute refusal to quit on 50/50 balls. His exceptional hustle metrics kept possessions alive, compensating for a frosty shooting night from the perimeter. He functioned perfectly as a brief energy injection, disrupting the opponent's rhythm with aggressive ball pressure.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +0.2
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 12.4m -5.5
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Solid rim protection during a brief stint anchored his slightly positive net impact. He stayed vertical on challenges and avoided cheap fouls, forcing opponents to alter their shots in the paint. This disciplined defensive execution outweighed his negligible offensive footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -57.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 10.3m -4.6
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

A failure to generate any secondary stats or defensive stops resulted in a negative ledger during his brief run. He operated strictly as a spot-up decoy, rarely touching the ball while getting outmuscled on the other end. The lack of physical engagement made him an easy target in isolation matchups.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -53.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 6.8m -2.9
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0