Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
BOS lead ORL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
ORL 2P — 3P —
BOS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 188 attempts

ORL ORL Shot-making Δ

Howard Hard 11/23 +4.2
Bane 6/13 -1.1
Black 4/13 -4.3
Richardson Hard 7/11 +6.1
Wagner 5/10 +0.3
da Silva 4/7 +1.6
Penda 5/6 +5.7
Jones Hard 1/6 -3.0
Cain Hard 1/6 -4.7
Robinson 3/4 +2.3

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Brown 14/26 +4.4
Pritchard 9/16 +2.9
Simons Hard 8/11 +9.9
White 5/11 +0.9
Minott 7/8 +6.4
Hauser Hard 5/8 +5.9
Queta Open 3/3 +2.0
Walsh 1/3 -1.6
Scheierman Hard 1/2 0.0
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
ORL
BOS
47/100 Field Goals 53/88
47.0% Field Goal % 60.2%
16/38 3-Pointers 15/33
42.1% 3-Point % 45.5%
19/24 Free Throws 17/22
79.2% Free Throw % 77.3%
58.3% True Shooting % 70.6%
56 Total Rebounds 43
18 Offensive 7
26 Defensive 30
33 Assists 29
4.12 Assist/TO Ratio 5.80
7 Turnovers 5
3 Steals 6
4 Blocks 8
17 Fouls 21
52 Points in Paint 64
16 Fast Break Pts 26
5 Points off TOs 14
21 Second Chance Pts 10
66 Bench Points 57
2 Largest Lead 26
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jaylen Brown
35 PTS · 4 REB · 8 AST · 37.4 MIN
+27.5
2
Jett Howard
30 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 29.1 MIN
+23.15
3
Payton Pritchard
19 PTS · 5 REB · 8 AST · 33.5 MIN
+22.57
4
Derrick White
16 PTS · 7 REB · 5 AST · 36.3 MIN
+21.49
5
Anfernee Simons
23 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 22.2 MIN
+20.63
6
Noah Penda
13 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 23.3 MIN
+19.87
7
Josh Minott
16 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 19.5 MIN
+17.88
8
Jase Richardson
18 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 21.3 MIN
+17.49
9
Desmond Bane
18 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 28.7 MIN
+14.56
10
Tristan da Silva
9 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 23.2 MIN
+11.06
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:08 P. Pritchard REBOUND (Off:2 Def:3) 129–138
Q4 0:11 D. White BLOCK (3 BLK) 129–138
Q4 0:11 MISS J. Richardson driving Layup - blocked 129–138
Q4 0:16 D. White Free Throw 2 of 2 (16 PTS) 129–138
Q4 0:16 D. White Free Throw 1 of 2 (15 PTS) 129–137
Q4 0:16 N. Penda take personal FOUL (2 PF) (White 2 FT) 129–136
Q4 0:20 J. Howard driving Layup (30 PTS) (T. Jones 6 AST) 129–136
Q4 0:23 P. Pritchard cutting Layup (19 PTS) (D. White 5 AST) 127–136
Q4 0:24 D. White away-from-play Free Throw 1 of 1 (14 PTS) 127–134
Q4 0:24 J. Richardson away-from-play personal FOUL (1 PF) (Brown 1 FT) 127–133
Q4 0:24 J. Cain personal FOUL (2 PF) 127–133
Q4 0:29 J. Brown REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 127–133
Q4 0:33 MISS J. Howard 25' step back 3PT 127–133
Q4 0:47 J. Cain STEAL (1 STL) 127–133
Q4 0:47 J. Walsh lost ball TURNOVER (2 TO) 127–133

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 37.4m
35
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+26.1

Relentless offensive volume and high-end shot creation drove a massive positive impact. Maintaining his elite scoring tear while adding significant hustle value overwhelmed the opposing perimeter defense. His ability to consistently break down primary defenders defined this dominant showing.

Shooting
FG 14/26 (53.8%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 60.2%
USG% 35.3%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Scoring +26.1
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +8.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Derrick White 36.3m
16
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+15.1

An absolute masterclass in defensive positioning drove a massive overall impact score. Combining elite point-of-attack defense with a timely scoring surge completely disrupted the opponent's game plan. His relentless hustle and disruptive hands defined this two-way clinic.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +6.0
Defense +5.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 1
19
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+17.4

Elite defensive activity and consistent shot-making stabilized the backcourt rotation. While his overall impact was slightly muted by hidden lineup factors, his ability to pressure the ball defensively stood out. Maintaining his high-level scoring average with efficient interior finishes defined his night.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Scoring +14.0
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +6.3
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jordan Walsh 24.3m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.2

Despite excellent hustle metrics, severe hidden negatives and offensive passivity tanked his overall impact. Failing to stretch the floor or generate meaningful defensive stops allowed opponents to exploit his minutes. His inability to impact the game beyond loose balls defined this highly negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Neemias Queta 5.8m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Perfect shooting efficiency salvaged a positive impact despite a notable drop in his usual scoring volume. Poor defensive positioning and a lack of hustle stats limited his overall ceiling. Capitalizing on every single look at the rim defined his brief but effective offensive role.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Sam Hauser 27.5m
14
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Elite floor spacing was completely undone by defensive bleeding, dragging his overall impact deep into the red. Opponents consistently targeted him on the perimeter, negating the value of his sharpshooting. This inability to string together defensive stops defined his highly negative plus-minus.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Scoring +11.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
23
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.5

Blistering perimeter efficiency fueled a highly positive impact score. Torching the nets from deep masked his slight defensive shortcomings and lack of secondary hustle stats. His pure shot-making gravity stretched the floor and defined his offensive dominance.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.3%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Scoring +20.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Minott 19.5m
16
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.3

Near-perfect shot selection and stout defensive metrics resulted in a highly efficient two-way performance. Punishing defensive rotations with high-percentage looks kept the offense humming. His ability to seamlessly blend scoring volume with defensive stops defined his excellent impact.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +38.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Scoring +15.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.2

Generating zero field goal attempts didn't matter because his defensive rim protection anchored the unit. Elite activity on the margins and high hustle metrics kept his impact positive. Completely altering shots in the paint defined his strictly defensive contribution.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 3.1%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.7

A sharp decline in offensive involvement resulted in a slightly negative overall impact. Solid defensive rotations and active hustle kept the floor from collapsing during his minutes. Ultimately, his lack of offensive gravity allowed the defense to sag off and stall possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.8

Failing to register a single field goal attempt severely limited his offensive utility and dragged down his overall impact. While he provided marginal hustle stats, his total passivity on the scoring end created spacing issues. Being completely ignored by the opposing defense defined his negative stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg +45.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 28.7m
18
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.4

Offensive volume drove a strong box score metric, but defensive lapses wiped out nearly all of that value. A slight dip in his usual scoring output combined with perimeter defensive struggles resulted in a neutral overall impact. His ability to generate secondary hustle plays barely kept him in the green.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -17.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Scoring +12.1
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Franz Wagner 27.6m
15
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.3

Despite hitting his usual scoring averages, hidden negatives cratered his overall impact. An inability to generate high-leverage plays or defensive stops allowed opponents to capitalize when he was on the floor. His baseline offensive consistency simply couldn't offset the defensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 55.5%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +9.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Anthony Black 27.5m
14
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.0

Severe inefficiency from the floor completely tanked his overall impact rating. Forcing bad shots outweighed his commendable hustle metrics and decent defensive positioning. The sheer volume of empty possessions defined his struggles as a primary creator.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -37.1
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense -2.3
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.6

A sharp drop in offensive volume compared to his recent averages dragged his overall impact into the negative despite solid defensive metrics. His passivity on that end defined the performance, as he failed to match his usual offensive aggression. The underlying defensive activity kept the floor from completely falling out.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -37.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

Hyper-efficient finishing in limited minutes kept his overall impact slightly above water. A lack of defensive resistance capped his ceiling, but he maximized his offensive touches. Capitalizing on nearly every look around the rim defined his short stint.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -31.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jett Howard 29.1m
30
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+19.9

A staggering scoring explosion completely redefined his role and drove a massive positive impact. Unrelenting perimeter aggression masked his slight defensive deficiencies. Catching fire from deep forced the defense to bend, opening up the floor for the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 11/23 (47.8%)
3PT 5/13 (38.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Scoring +21.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +8.4
Hustle +6.0
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyus Jones 24.7m
3
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-13.2

Abysmal shooting efficiency and a total lack of hustle plays resulted in a disastrous overall impact score. Failing to pressure the rim or hit open jumpers allowed the defense to completely ignore him. This offensive stagnation stalled out multiple possessions and defined his highly negative night.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 23.3m
13
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.4

Elite two-way activity and a monumental scoring spike resulted in the highest impact score on the roster. Dominating the hustle categories and playing lockdown defense completely changed the game's complexion. His hyper-efficient finishing around the basket capitalized on every single opportunity.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.9%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +22.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Scoring +12.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +7.2
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
18
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.4

An unexpected offensive surge fueled a highly productive two-way performance. Excellent shot selection combined with active hands in the passing lanes maximized his floor time. This sudden emergence as a reliable scoring valve defined his stellar impact.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.7%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Scoring +14.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Cain 16.5m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.0

A brutal regression to the mean cratered his value after a hot streak of highly efficient games. While his defensive metrics remained stout, the sheer volume of missed perimeter looks killed offensive momentum. Breaking his streak of efficient shooting defined this steep drop in impact.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Scoring -1.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.4

A complete offensive zero in brief action dragged his overall rating into the red. Solid defensive positioning couldn't compensate for the lack of floor spacing or offensive gravity. His inability to leave any imprint on the scoring end defined this short rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -74.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1