GAME ANALYSIS

GET THIS IN YOUR INBOX

Every breakdown for your team — free, the morning after the game.

Follow your team — free

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Jayson Tatum 39.0m
19
pts
14
reb
9
ast
Impact
+15.5

Tatum operated as a massive connective hub, pulling down an above-average 14 rebounds and dishing 9 assists to drive a dominant +17.8 Hustle credit. While his scoring efficiency dipped (8-of-19 shooting), his sheer volume and playmaking kept the offense flowing despite a -7.8 turnover penalty.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.8%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +17.8
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Derrick White 38.9m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.6

White endured a grueling offensive slump, misfiring on 8 of his 10 three-point attempts to finish well below his scoring average. His struggles were compounded by sloppy ball security, as his three turnovers generated a -5.9 penalty that severely undercut his connective value.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.1
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 39.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Jaylen Brown 38.2m
36
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+26.8

Brown unleashed a brute-force offensive onslaught, pouring in an above-average 36 points fueled by excellent perimeter shot-making (+7.9 ShotMaking credit). This massive scoring volume (+25.4 Scoring credit) carried the offense, though his three turnovers still extracted a -8.5 penalty on his overall value.

Shooting
FG 11/24 (45.8%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Scoring +25.4
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +7.9
Hustle +7.9
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -8.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Neemias Queta 27.8m
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Queta was highly efficient as a finisher, converting 3-of-4 shots to post a +7.4 Scoring credit. However, his overall value was dragged down by defensive lapses (-1.9 Defense credit) and a lack of playmaking involvement.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +3.7
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Sam Hauser 25.1m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

Hauser suffered through a frigid perimeter shooting night, connecting on just 2-of-8 attempts from deep to limit his offensive utility. His struggles extended to the defensive end, where opponents scorched him by shooting 62% when he was the primary defender.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.1

Pritchard's typically lethal perimeter jumper completely abandoned him, as he missed all four of his deep attempts to post a negative Scoring credit (-0.3). He tried to compensate as a facilitator with 5 assists, but opponents exploited him defensively, shooting 62% when he was the nearest defender.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -33.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Vučević provided a solid offensive lift off the bench, scoring an above-average 9 points without committing a single turnover. He also chipped in on the glass to drive a +5.4 Hustle credit, though his defensive impact (-1.9) remained a weak point.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Scheierman maximized his limited touches, converting both of his field goal attempts to notch a highly efficient +5.0 Scoring credit. He also provided a surprisingly sturdy defensive presence (+2.4 Defense credit) during his brief stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -31.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.5

Walsh was an absolute non-factor offensively, failing to score while attempting just a single shot in his 9 minutes of action. He managed to grab 3 rebounds to salvage a +3.8 Hustle credit, but his overall rotational footprint was minimal.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.0%
Net Rtg -88.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.3

Harper Jr. barely broke a sweat in under two minutes of garbage-time action. He missed his only shot attempt and recorded a single assist, leaving virtually no statistical footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Max Shulga 1.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.4

Shulga was deployed for just under two minutes of mop-up duty at the end of the game. He missed his lone three-point attempt and failed to record any other counting stats.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 1.9m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.2

Garza saw less than two minutes of floor time, managing to grab 3 rebounds and convert his only two-point attempt. His brief appearance was purely a garbage-time cameo, though he did secure two loose-ball recoveries to boost his Hustle credit (+2.8).

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 39.8m
29
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
+22.2

Maxey embraced a grueling offensive workload, attempting 28 shots to generate a massive +17.1 Scoring credit. While his overall efficiency was muted, his perimeter shot-making (+7.8) and above-average playmaking (9 assists) kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 11/28 (39.3%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.2%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Scoring +17.1
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +7.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S VJ Edgecombe 35.3m
30
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+35.3

Edgecombe exploded as a high-volume offensive engine, pouring in 30 points fueled by elite perimeter shot-making (+8.5 ShotMaking credit). He paired this massive scoring burst (+24.7 Scoring credit) with relentless activity on the glass, grabbing an above-average 10 rebounds to dominate the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Scoring +24.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +8.5
Hustle +10.8
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Paul George 35.1m
19
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.4

George commanded the offense with a highly efficient scoring output (+13.3 Scoring credit) on 7-of-13 shooting. His shot-making (+4.5) was a clear positive, though he operated more as a finisher than a primary facilitator in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Scoring +13.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 32.2m
12
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Oubre provided an efficient scoring punch (+7.6 Scoring credit) while taking care of the ball, logging zero turnovers. However, his defensive impact lagged (-3.7 Defense credit), as his primary matchups shot a comfortable 57% when he was the nearest defender.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +4.4
Defense -3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Adem Bona 21.6m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.8

Bona was an absolute force as a rim deterrent, holding opponents to a stifling 2-of-13 (15%) shooting when guarded while logging 10 contests. Unfortunately, his offensive invisibility (-3.5 Scoring credit) and a -3.1 Turnover penalty completely neutralized his defensive value.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Scoring -3.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.5

Drummond maximized his minutes with flawless efficiency, converting all four of his field goal attempts to drive a +9.5 Scoring credit. His immense physical presence was felt in the margins, generating 8 screen assists and 9 shot contests to anchor a +10.2 Hustle credit.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +9.5
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +10.2
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Edwards provided a modest spark of energy, logging 6 contests to fuel a solid +5.1 Hustle credit. However, he struggled to contain his defensive assignments, allowing opponents to shoot 55% when he was the nearest defender.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

Grimes struggled to find his rhythm, posting a below-average 6 points while failing to generate much connective value. Though his perimeter stroke was solid (2-of-3 from deep), a lack of overall volume and a slight turnover penalty (-2.4) marginalized his impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.6

Barlow was completely invisible offensively during his brief stint, failing to attempt a single shot. His rotational minutes were further hampered by defensive struggles, reflected in a -3.1 Defense credit.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +71.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0