Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
BOS lead UTA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
UTA 2P — 3P —
BOS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 173 attempts

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

Markkanen 7/17 -2.0
George Hard 9/16 +5.0
Mykhailiuk Hard 4/12 -3.7
Nurkić Open 5/12 -4.1
Filipowski 4/7 +2.7
Hendricks 1/5 -3.4
Clayton Jr. 3/4 +2.6
Bailey 2/4 -0.3
Harkless 1/4 -2.4
Love Hard 2/3 +1.9

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Brown 13/28 -3.6
Pritchard Hard 7/15 +3.9
Simons Hard 5/13 -0.4
White Hard 3/9 +0.3
Hauser Hard 1/8 -5.0
Minott 1/5 -3.2
Queta Open 4/4 +3.4
Boucher 2/3 +1.4
Garza Hard 0/2 -2.0
González Open 1/1 +0.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
UTA
BOS
38/84 Field Goals 37/89
45.2% Field Goal % 41.6%
9/31 3-Pointers 11/51
29.0% 3-Point % 21.6%
20/25 Free Throws 18/22
80.0% Free Throw % 81.8%
55.3% True Shooting % 52.2%
65 Total Rebounds 43
15 Offensive 10
40 Defensive 26
23 Assists 21
1.21 Assist/TO Ratio 2.10
18 Turnovers 10
4 Steals 12
2 Blocks 4
21 Fouls 22
54 Points in Paint 40
15 Fast Break Pts 19
16 Points off TOs 17
13 Second Chance Pts 19
32 Bench Points 28
11 Largest Lead 14
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Keyonte George
31 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 38.0 MIN
+26.56
2
Jaylen Brown
36 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 37.6 MIN
+22.49
3
Walter Clayton Jr.
7 PTS · 3 REB · 6 AST · 15.7 MIN
+14.63
4
Derrick White
10 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 32.6 MIN
+14.36
5
Payton Pritchard
18 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 34.5 MIN
+10.86
6
Neemias Queta
9 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 26.2 MIN
+10.06
7
Lauri Markkanen
20 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 36.8 MIN
+10.06
8
Anfernee Simons
15 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 26.3 MIN
+8.74
9
Kyle Filipowski
13 PTS · 8 REB · 0 AST · 19.5 MIN
+6.89
10
Jusuf Nurkić
11 PTS · 11 REB · 4 AST · 31.2 MIN
+5.54
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 J. Brown offensive foul TURNOVER (3 TO) 105–103
Q4 0:00 J. Brown offensive FOUL (3 PF) 105–103
Q4 0:00 J. Nurkić turnaround Hook (11 PTS) 105–103
Q4 0:00 J. Nurkić REBOUND (Off:4 Def:7) 103–103
Q4 0:03 MISS K. George 15' pullup Shot 103–103
Q4 0:23 S. Mykhailiuk REBOUND (Off:0 Def:6) 103–103
Q4 0:24 MISS N. Queta Free Throw 2 of 2 103–103
Q4 0:24 N. Queta Free Throw 1 of 2 (9 PTS) 103–103
Q4 0:24 J. Nurkić shooting personal FOUL (4 PF) (Queta 2 FT) 103–102
Q4 0:44 L. Markkanen running alley-oop Layup (20 PTS) (W. Clayton Jr. 6 AST) 103–102
Q4 0:47 W. Clayton Jr. STEAL (2 STL) 101–102
Q4 0:47 J. Brown lost ball TURNOVER (2 TO) 101–102
Q4 1:00 D. White technical Free Throw 1 of 1 (10 PTS) 101–102
Q4 1:00 J. Nurkić defensive-3-second technical FOUL (1 Tech) 101–101
Q4 1:16 K. George Free Throw 2 of 2 (31 PTS) 101–101

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 37.6m
36
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+21.2

Relentless attacking inside the arc generated a massive box score impact, completely overriding a disastrous 0-of-9 showing from deep. He compensated for the perimeter bricks with physical drives and engaged defense (+4.2). The sheer volume of his interior scoring forced the defense to collapse, dictating the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 13/28 (46.4%)
3PT 0/9 (0.0%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 54.8%
USG% 41.7%
Net Rtg +28.9
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Scoring +25.0
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +5.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.6
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
18
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.7

A high volume of missed perimeter shots (seven missed threes) fueled opponent transition opportunities and drove his rating into the negative. The empty possessions neutralized his overall scoring output. He failed to generate enough defensive resistance to cover for the erratic shot selection.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +11.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Derrick White 32.6m
10
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.4

Off-the-charts hustle (+12.1) and suffocating perimeter defense (+9.8) propelled his massive positive impact. He didn't need to score efficiently to control the game, instead using his activity level to blow up actions and create extra possessions. His playmaking and relentless defensive pressure completely overwhelmed his matchups.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
S Neemias Queta 26.2m
9
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.3

Perfect execution around the basket and elite defensive anchoring (+7.9) resulted in a highly effective stint. He dominated the paint with flawless shooting and relentless energy (+4.5 hustle) that disrupted opponent sets. His physical presence inside was a major catalyst for the team's success during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 84.6%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +31.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +7.2
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Josh Minott 15.0m
2
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.8

A severe drop in scoring efficiency nearly wiped out his overall value, as he missed four of his five looks. He managed to stay slightly in the green by contributing on the glass and making timely hustle plays (+2.7). However, the inability to finish looks he normally converts kept his impact heavily muted.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +35.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Scoring -0.9
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +6.7
Defense -2.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Sam Hauser 28.0m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

A catastrophic shooting slump (seven missed threes) completely tanked his value, erasing the benefits of his surprisingly strong defensive rotations (+6.7). The constant misfires stalled the offense and led to long rebounds that fueled the opponent. His inability to punish closeouts rendered him an offensive liability.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 22.5%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Scoring -2.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
15
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.5

Inefficient perimeter chucking (six missed threes) severely capped his overall effectiveness. He salvaged a slightly positive rating through adequate defensive positioning (+2.5), but the wasted offensive possessions were glaring. The volume-heavy approach failed to yield the necessary points per shot to truly impact the game.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -22.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 10.9m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

A brief, unimpactful shift saw his usual scoring efficiency vanish entirely as he missed both of his attempts. He failed to convert his limited opportunities, breaking a streak of highly efficient outings. The lack of offensive assertiveness resulted in a completely neutral footprint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -64.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.3

High-energy play in limited minutes drove a solid positive impact score. He maximized his brief opportunity by converting his only look and flying around the court (+3.5 hustle) to create chaos. His relentless motor ensured his short shift was highly productive.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -68.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Efficient spot-up shooting provided a mild boost to his overall rating in a short burst of action. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns, hitting two of his three shots to keep the offense ticking. While his hustle metrics were flat, the reliable finishing ensured his shift was a net positive.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.3

Extreme passivity resulted in a damaging -4.8 rating during his brief time on the court. He failed to attempt a single shot or generate any tangible hustle stats, essentially playing a man down on offense. The complete lack of aggression allowed the defense to ignore him entirely.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

Even without scoring a single point, his physical defense (+2.6) and active screening earned him a positive rating. He embraced a gritty role during his short stint, using his hustle (+2.1) to secure loose balls and disrupt actions. It was a textbook example of generating value purely through effort and positioning.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -57.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Keyonte George 38.0m
31
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+29.7

Searing offensive efficiency drove a massive +15.1 impact score, as he carved up the defense with high-value shot selection. He paired his aggressive scoring with active hands on defense (+4.2) to dominate his minutes. This was a masterclass in dictating the flow of the game through relentless rim pressure and timely shooting.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 11/13 (84.6%)
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Scoring +25.1
Creation +3.0
Shot Making +5.6
Hustle +5.4
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Lauri Markkanen 36.8m
20
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.5

A barrage of missed jumpers (10 missed field goals) stalled offensive momentum and dragged his overall rating into the red. Despite decent scoring volume, the inefficiency of his shot profile outweighed his mild defensive contributions. The lack of secondary playmaking meant his empty possessions were particularly costly.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Scoring +12.9
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +9.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jusuf Nurkić 31.2m
11
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.5

Strong defensive positioning (+4.7) was ultimately undone by poor finishing around the rim, missing seven attempts inside. His inability to convert point-blank looks cost the team valuable points in the paint, dragging his total impact into the negative. The playmaking flashes couldn't compensate for the inefficient interior scoring.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +13.0
Defense -4.5
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Svi Mykhailiuk 29.4m
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

A brutal shooting night from beyond the arc (seven missed threes) severely damaged his overall value. Even with respectable hustle and defensive metrics, the sheer volume of wasted perimeter possessions cratered his impact score. He failed to replicate his recent hot streak, settling for low-quality looks that derailed offensive sets.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -16.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.9

Offensive struggles completely tanked his rating as he misfired on four of his five attempts. While he provided a slight defensive boost (+2.1), his inability to find a rhythm on the other end rendered him a net negative. The steep drop-off from his recent scoring averages highlighted a glaring lack of execution.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -51.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.9

Excellent hustle (+4.6) was completely overshadowed by offensive invisibility and defensive missteps. He struggled to generate any meaningful offense, converting just one field goal while failing to connect from deep. The high-energy plays simply couldn't bridge the gap left by his lack of scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.1

High-quality shot selection fueled a positive impact, continuing his streak of hyper-efficient performances. He stretched the floor effectively while maintaining solid defensive rotations (+3.0). The combination of reliable scoring and disciplined defense made his minutes highly productive.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +44.6
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Scoring +9.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +8.2
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Ace Bailey 18.2m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.9

A passive offensive approach and defensive lapses (-1.2) resulted in a steep -9.0 net rating. He vanished from the offensive gameplan, taking just four shots and falling drastically short of his usual scoring output. The lack of aggression allowed his matchup to dictate the terms of engagement during his stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +26.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kevin Love 16.6m
5
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.9

Limited usage kept his overall impact hovering near neutral during a brief stint. While he was efficient when called upon and provided solid defensive positioning (+2.0), he simply didn't assert himself enough to swing the game. His steady but quiet presence failed to move the needle in either direction.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -0.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +6.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.7

Elite defensive execution (+6.2) and crisp playmaking defined a highly impactful shift. Rather than forcing his own offense, he picked apart the defense with six assists and capitalized on his few shot attempts. His ability to elevate teammates while locking down his assignment drove a stellar +9.8 rating.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0