Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
BOS lead NYK lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
NYK 2P — 3P —
BOS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 172 attempts

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Brunson Hard 6/21 -6.7
Towns 12/19 +5.0
Bridges Hard 12/17 +13.9
Hart Hard 7/11 +6.3
McBride Hard 3/6 +2.9
Clarkson Hard 1/5 -1.8
Kolek Hard 2/4 +0.5
Yabusele Hard 0/2 -2.2

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Brown 16/24 +9.6
White Hard 8/16 +3.7
Pritchard Hard 4/13 -2.0
Simons Hard 5/9 +1.8
Minott Hard 4/6 +4.1
González 2/6 -2.5
Walsh Open 4/4 +2.9
Queta Open 4/4 +2.4
Hauser Hard 2/4 +2.1
Scheierman Hard 0/1 -0.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
NYK
BOS
43/85 Field Goals 49/87
50.6% Field Goal % 56.3%
19/44 3-Pointers 13/40
43.2% 3-Point % 32.5%
12/17 Free Throws 12/14
70.6% Free Throw % 85.7%
63.3% True Shooting % 66.0%
47 Total Rebounds 43
10 Offensive 11
23 Defensive 27
29 Assists 18
2.42 Assist/TO Ratio 1.80
10 Turnovers 10
5 Steals 6
2 Blocks 3
15 Fouls 20
42 Points in Paint 56
16 Fast Break Pts 15
19 Points off TOs 25
15 Second Chance Pts 16
10 Bench Points 33
14 Largest Lead 18
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Mikal Bridges
35 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 33.6 MIN
+38.3
2
Jaylen Brown
42 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 39.9 MIN
+29.82
3
Karl-Anthony Towns
29 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 33.2 MIN
+19.87
4
Josh Hart
19 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 36.2 MIN
+17.77
5
Jordan Walsh
8 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 18.9 MIN
+15.86
6
Derrick White
22 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 35.1 MIN
+12.51
7
Neemias Queta
8 PTS · 6 REB · 0 AST · 21.1 MIN
+11.73
8
Josh Minott
11 PTS · 6 REB · 0 AST · 26.7 MIN
+11.39
9
Anfernee Simons
12 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 23.8 MIN
+8.89
10
Sam Hauser
6 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 18.8 MIN
+8.56
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 117–123
Q4 0:00 NYK Heave 117–123
Q4 0:02 J. Brown cutting DUNK (42 PTS) (A. Simons 3 AST) 117–123
Q4 0:05 J. Brunson driving Layup (15 PTS) 117–121
Q4 0:11 D. White cutting Layup (22 PTS) (S. Hauser 1 AST) 115–121
Q4 0:16 J. Walsh REBOUND (Off:4 Def:2) 115–119
Q4 0:19 MISS M. Bridges 26' pullup 3PT 115–119
Q4 0:24 J. Brown bad pass out-of-bounds TURNOVER (4 TO) 115–119
Q4 0:45 M. Bridges 26' 3PT pullup (35 PTS) 115–119
Q4 0:52 K. Towns REBOUND (Off:2 Def:5) 112–119
Q4 0:55 MISS D. White 26' 3PT 112–119
Q4 1:20 M. Bridges driving DUNK (32 PTS) 112–119
Q4 1:27 D. White Free Throw 2 of 2 (20 PTS) 110–119
Q4 1:27 D. White Free Throw 1 of 2 (19 PTS) 110–118
Q4 1:27 J. Hart loose ball personal FOUL (3 PF) (White 2 FT) 110–117

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 39.9m
42
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+29.8

An absolute masterclass in offensive efficiency, his +14.3 impact was built on ruthlessly exploiting mismatch isolations. He consistently bullied smaller defenders in the mid-post, generating high-quality looks without turning the ball over. This surgical shot selection, combined with suffocating on-ball defense, made him the undisputed engine of the lineup.

Shooting
FG 16/24 (66.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 38.6%
Net Rtg +25.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Scoring +36.0
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +8.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Derrick White 35.1m
22
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.8

Despite elite defensive metrics and exceptional rim-protection from the guard spot, his overall impact hovered just below neutral. The primary culprit was a reliance on low-percentage perimeter bombs that frequently resulted in long rebounds and opponent transition opportunities. His stellar point-of-attack defense simply couldn't fully offset the damage caused by those erratic offensive sequences.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Scoring +15.6
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
10
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.2

A disastrous perimeter shooting performance severely handicapped his overall impact, dragging him down to a -10.9. He repeatedly forced contested looks early in the shot clock, bailing out the defense and killing offensive momentum. Those empty possessions compounded quickly, completely overshadowing his otherwise respectable effort in the hustle categories.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.2%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 21.1m
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Dominating the restricted area with sheer physicality, he posted a +5.7 impact by converting every single high-percentage look he was fed. He served as an impenetrable wall on drop coverage, consistently altering floaters and deterring rim attempts. This hyper-efficient, mistake-free shift provided massive stability to the interior defense.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -26.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +5.7
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jordan Walsh 18.9m
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.0

Flawless execution within his specific role drove a highly efficient +7.7 impact rating. By strictly limiting his offensive diet to opportunistic cuts and transition finishes, he maximized his value without demanding touches. His disciplined weak-side defensive rotations further amplified his positive footprint during a crucial second-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -32.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +7.6
Defense +1.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Josh Minott 26.7m
11
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

Opportunistic scoring and disciplined defensive positioning kept his impact in the green. He thrived by aggressively attacking closeouts and making decisive reads, completely avoiding the costly turnovers that plague young wings. This steady, mistake-free execution during the middle frames provided essential connective tissue for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +21.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +7.6
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.6

Defensive bleed was the main driver behind his -3.1 impact score, as he struggled mightily to navigate off-ball screens. Opponents relentlessly targeted his side of the floor, generating wide-open catch-and-shoot opportunities that negated his smooth offensive production. Consequently, the team bled points during his rotational minutes despite his capable shot-making.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Offensive spacing issues severely hampered his overall effectiveness, dragging his impact down to -5.3. By constantly bricking wide-open perimeter looks, he allowed his defender to sag into the paint and choke off primary driving lanes. While he competed hard on the defensive end, his inability to stretch the floor proved too costly for the halfcourt offense.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Scoring +0.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense +1.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Sam Hauser 18.8m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Serving primarily as a floor-spacing decoy, his subtle +0.5 impact was buoyed by surprisingly stout positional defense. He consistently funneled drivers toward the help defense, avoiding cheap fouls while maintaining structural integrity. Even with limited offensive touches, his sheer gravitational pull on the perimeter created vital driving lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.1

A brief, chaotic stint resulted in a quick -2.8 impact drain due to rushed decision-making. He forced a heavily contested shot outside the flow of the offense, immediately sparking a fast break going the other way. The coaching staff quickly pulled the plug after this disjointed sequence disrupted the team's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.7

Thrown in for a singular defensive possession at the end of a quarter, his -0.8 impact is purely circumstantial. He was caught out of position on a quick baseline inbound play, resulting in an immediate defensive breakdown. It was a microscopic sample size that ultimately meant nothing to the game's broader narrative.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.1m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 39.2m
15
pts
2
reb
11
ast
Impact
-7.2

Severe struggles with shot selection and forced isolation attempts against set defenses torpedoed his overall value. Clanking numerous contested perimeter looks killed offensive flow and frequently ignited opponent fast breaks. While he managed to salvage some value through active defensive hands, the sheer volume of empty possessions was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 6/21 (28.6%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 33.6%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 17
Opp FG% 81.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Miles McBride 36.2m
9
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.4

Despite generating solid hustle metrics through aggressive point-of-attack pressure, his overall impact cratered to -7.2. Poor defensive rotations during crucial transition sequences allowed easy run-outs that erased his offensive contributions. The stark contrast between his individual effort and the team's struggles while he was on the floor highlights a lack of connective execution.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +18.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Josh Hart 36.2m
19
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.1

Relentless energy in transition and elite loose-ball recovery fueled a robust +5.5 hustle rating. He constantly outworked bigger matchups on the glass, generating crucial extra possessions that sustained offensive momentum. This high-motor performance perfectly complemented the primary scorers while keeping the defense scrambling.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.0%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Scoring +16.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +7.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mikal Bridges 33.6m
35
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+37.4

An absolute flamethrower from the perimeter, his massive +22.8 impact was driven by pristine shot selection and elite spacing. He consistently punished defensive rotations during a blistering second-half stretch, converting nearly every open look he was given. The sheer volume of highly efficient perimeter strikes completely broke the opponent's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 12/17 (70.6%)
3PT 8/12 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.5%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +31.3
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +9.0
Hustle +5.7
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
29
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+18.3

Dominating the interior matchups, his offensive gravity forced constant double-teams that opened up the floor. He paired this interior dominance with disciplined verticality at the rim, anchoring a strong +4.4 defensive contribution. The combination of high-value paint touches and rim deterrence resulted in a highly effective two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +18.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +24.2
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +7.0
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.9

A complete lack of offensive rhythm and an inability to separate from primary defenders resulted in a steep -11.2 impact score. He settled for heavily contested mid-range jumpers instead of moving the ball, stalling out the second unit's offense. This stagnant decision-making allowed the opposition to easily dictate the tempo during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg -29.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
1
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Operating almost entirely as a decoy, his complete lack of offensive aggression allowed defenders to freely roam and clog the paint. He provided some baseline value through standard rim protection, but his inability to command defensive attention on the roll severely hampered spacing. The resulting 4-on-5 halfcourt dynamic ultimately dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.4%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg -41.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyler Kolek 14.8m
4
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.6

Defensive liabilities at the point of attack were the primary culprit behind his -3.8 total impact. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in high pick-and-roll actions, forcing defensive collapses and open kick-outs. Despite showing flashes of competent offensive orchestration, the points he surrendered on the other end entirely negated his value.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -82.1
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.8

Brief and ineffective, his stint was marred by blown defensive assignments on the perimeter that compromised the scheme. Forcing a pair of ill-advised outside shots early in the shot clock further disrupted the team's offensive flow. He simply could not match the game's physical intensity during his short rotation pattern.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -53.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Scoring -1.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

Logging mere seconds of garbage time, there was zero opportunity to influence the game's outcome. His negative fractional impact is purely a statistical artifact of a single empty possession. He essentially served as a human victory cigar at the final buzzer.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.1m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -1.1
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0