GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 40.5m
34
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+8.3

Bully-ball drives into the teeth of the defense generated consistent rim pressure and collapsed the opposing shell. Though his perimeter stroke was flat, his sheer physicality on the attack and sticky on-ball defense drove a stellar overall rating. He routinely punished mismatches in the mid-post during crucial momentum swings.

Shooting
FG 13/25 (52.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 7/14 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 39.8%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.5m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.6
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 40.5m -19.9
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 4
S Derrick White 37.9m
31
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.0

An unexpected explosion of perimeter shot-making completely warped the opponent's defensive game plan. He masterfully operated as the primary initiator, punishing drop coverages with lethal off-the-dribble shooting. Combined with his usual elite screen navigation on defense, this two-way clinic drove a massive positive rating.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.5
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 37.9m -18.7
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
12
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.2

Forcing heavily contested pull-up jumpers early in the shot clock derailed the offensive rhythm and tanked his impact score. Opponents actively hunted him in isolation, forcing defensive rotations that compromised the rebounding glass. The sheer volume of empty offensive possessions erased any value from his secondary playmaking.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 35.3m -17.4
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 34.5m
6
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

A sharp decline in offensive finishing limited his ceiling, as he struggled to convert through contact around the basket. However, his imposing verticality altered countless shots in the paint, salvaging his overall impact. The rim deterrence was superb even when his touch around the cylinder abandoned him.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.8
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 34.5m -17.0
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jordan Walsh 17.7m
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Navigating screens with excellent footwork allowed him to suffocate opposing wings and drive a strong defensive rating. He capitalized on his limited offensive touches by spacing the floor effectively and moving decisively without the ball. That disciplined, mistake-free basketball perfectly suited his complementary role.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.6%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -27.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.5
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 17.7m -8.8
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.2

A complete lack of perimeter gravity crippled his offensive value, as defenders sagged off to clog driving lanes for others. He compounded the poor shooting by getting caught ball-watching on defense, yielding uncontested back-door cuts. The inability to stretch the floor or secure his assignment resulted in a heavily negative night.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.4
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 25.3m -12.4
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Defensive hesitation against quicker guards led to blow-by drives that compromised the entire defensive shell. While he showed flashes of decisive cutting on offense, his inability to contain the point of attack bled points the other way. Those defensive breakdowns ultimately dragged his overall rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +35.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.2
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 16.5m -8.1
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.5

Completely neutralized by physical perimeter defense, he was unable to create any separation for his jumper. His struggles to navigate off-ball screens left him out of position on both ends of the floor. The resulting dead possessions and defensive tardiness severely punished the team's net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.1
Raw total +0.0
Avg player in 14.9m -7.5
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Minott 13.2m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Offensive invisibility plagued his stint on the floor, failing to register a single productive touch in the half-court. Despite showing decent lateral quickness on the defensive end, his complete lack of scoring threat allowed defenders to double-team the primary ball-handlers. The resulting stagnation dragged down the entire lineup's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -39.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.3
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 13.2m -6.5
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Sam Hauser 4.3m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Rushed his only perimeter look during a brief rotation and failed to establish any rhythm. The opposing offense immediately targeted his foot speed in space, forcing quick defensive collapses. It was a largely forgettable stint where he couldn't leverage his usual shooting gravity.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 4.3m -2.2
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 36.3m
32
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
+9.3

Masterful manipulation of drop coverage dictated the entire flow of the game, resulting in a massive positive impact. He consistently punished under-screens with decisive perimeter shooting while keeping the offense humming through high-leverage reads. The sheer volume of elite shot creation completely overwhelmed the opposing backcourt.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg -0.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +23.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.5
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 36.3m -17.9
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tobias Harris 31.8m
13
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.5

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers severely limited his offensive efficiency, resulting in a complete blank from beyond the arc. However, timely weak-side rotations and consistent closeouts kept his defensive impact firmly in the green. His veteran positioning salvaged a night where his jumper completely abandoned him.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 31.8m -15.6
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Duren 29.1m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

A massive drop-off in offensive involvement tanked his overall rating despite anchoring the paint effectively on the other end. He struggled to establish deep post position against physical frontcourt matchups, completely disrupting his usual rim-running rhythm. The defensive rim protection was elite, but the lack of vertical spacing hurt the half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +7.0
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 29.1m -14.4
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 25.9m
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.5

Opposing guards relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll switches, bleeding points and erasing his modest offensive contributions. His inability to shake loose off screens resulted in a passive offensive outing where he barely tested the defensive shell. That lack of perimeter gravity allowed the opposition to comfortably pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 25.9m -12.8
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 22.8m
7
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.7

Despite active hands in the passing lanes boosting his defensive metrics, his offensive execution cratered his overall impact. A series of costly live-ball turnovers in transition completely negated his effort on the glass. Opponents sagged off him on the perimeter, deliberately clogging the paint to disrupt the rest of the unit.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/7 (14.3%)
Advanced
TS% 38.5%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 22.8m -11.1
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.3

Physical screen-setting and bruising box-outs generated extra possessions that steadily built his positive rating. He anchored the second unit's defense by seamlessly switching onto smaller guards late in the clock. That blue-collar dirty work in the trenches perfectly complemented the primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 22.3m -11.1
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jaden Ivey 21.0m
10
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.2

Relentless point-of-attack defense and high-energy loose ball recoveries kept his impact positive despite a frigid shooting night. He forced the issue too often from the perimeter, clanking multiple off-the-dribble looks early in the shot clock. Still, his ability to blow up dribble hand-offs proved invaluable during key defensive stretches.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +4.4
Defense +5.4
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 21.0m -10.4
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Caris LeVert 19.1m
13
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Slashing aggressively to the rim allowed him to break out of a recent scoring slump and provide a much-needed offensive spark. He capitalized on scrambled closeouts, attacking tilted defenses with decisive straight-line drives. A few defensive lapses off the ball kept his overall rating from climbing even higher.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.4
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 19.1m -9.4
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Missed rotations and poor closeout angles on the perimeter severely damaged his defensive rating. While he found some success cutting baseline for opportunistic finishes, his inability to stay in front of his man gave those points right back. The defensive bleeding ultimately outweighed his brief scoring bursts.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.5
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 14.5m -7.2
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.1

Elite weak-side rim protection and flawless rotational awareness fueled a massive defensive impact score. He completely shut down the baseline, blowing up multiple lob attempts and forcing late-clock bailouts. Offensively, he stayed perfectly in his lane by converting high-percentage dump-offs around the cylinder.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +35.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +7.5
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 14.2m -6.9
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

This brief stint was defined entirely by high-energy defensive pressure rather than offensive execution. He picked up the opposing ball-handler 94 feet from the hoop, disrupting the timing of their initial sets. That short burst of hustle kept his minimal minutes in the black.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.7
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 3.2m -1.6
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0