Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
TOR lead BOS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
BOS 2P — 3P —
TOR 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 180 attempts

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

White Hard 10/21 +8.0
Brown 9/19 +2.8
Simons 5/14 -3.1
Pritchard Hard 6/12 +3.5
Walsh 4/8 -0.5
Hauser Hard 3/7 +3.1
Queta Open 4/7 -0.7
González 2/2 +2.5
Minott Hard 1/1 +1.9
Scheierman Hard 0/1 -1.1

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Ingram Hard 11/20 +7.6
Barnes 6/12 -0.2
Mamukelashvili 6/10 +1.4
Shead 4/10 -2.1
Quickley Hard 4/9 -1.1
Poeltl 4/9 -1.3
Lawson 4/8 +0.4
Agbaji Open 4/7 0.0
Walter Hard 0/2 -2.0
Martin Open 0/1 -1.4
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BOS
TOR
44/92 Field Goals 43/88
47.8% Field Goal % 48.9%
20/47 3-Pointers 9/22
42.6% 3-Point % 40.9%
13/14 Free Throws 18/21
92.9% Free Throw % 85.7%
61.6% True Shooting % 58.1%
46 Total Rebounds 51
14 Offensive 11
27 Defensive 31
24 Assists 22
2.18 Assist/TO Ratio 1.69
11 Turnovers 12
8 Steals 5
9 Blocks 3
22 Fouls 18
42 Points in Paint 56
16 Fast Break Pts 19
10 Points off TOs 16
17 Second Chance Pts 4
29 Bench Points 44
23 Largest Lead 3
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jaylen Brown
30 PTS · 8 REB · 5 AST · 38.9 MIN
+27.43
2
Scottie Barnes
18 PTS · 11 REB · 8 AST · 37.3 MIN
+16.98
3
Neemias Queta
11 PTS · 11 REB · 4 AST · 33.7 MIN
+16.68
4
Payton Pritchard
15 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 37.9 MIN
+16.56
5
Brandon Ingram
30 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 35.2 MIN
+15.57
6
Sandro Mamukelashvili
14 PTS · 6 REB · 0 AST · 23.3 MIN
+12.55
7
Jordan Walsh
9 PTS · 6 REB · 0 AST · 26.0 MIN
+11.9
8
Derrick White
27 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 37.3 MIN
+11.22
9
Ochai Agbaji
11 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 22.2 MIN
+11.03
10
Immanuel Quickley
11 PTS · 1 REB · 5 AST · 31.3 MIN
+9.12
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:09 S. Barnes offensive foul TURNOVER (2 TO) 121–113
Q4 0:09 S. Barnes charge offensive FOUL (5 PF) 121–113
Q4 0:14 TEAM offensive REBOUND 121–113
Q4 0:15 D. White BLOCK (3 BLK) 121–113
Q4 0:15 MISS B. Ingram 25' pullup 3PT - blocked 121–113
Q4 0:18 J. Brown Free Throw 2 of 2 (30 PTS) 121–113
Q4 0:18 J. Brown Free Throw 1 of 2 (29 PTS) 120–113
Q4 0:18 S. Barnes personal FOUL (4 PF) (Brown 2 FT) 119–113
Q4 0:20 TEAM defensive REBOUND 119–113
Q4 0:22 MISS S. Mamukelashvili 25' pullup 3PT 119–113
Q4 0:32 J. Shead REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 119–113
Q4 0:36 MISS D. White 18' pullup Shot 119–113
Q4 0:59 B. Ingram 24' 3PT pullup (30 PTS) (I. Quickley 5 AST) 119–113
Q4 1:06 J. Brown Free Throw 2 of 2 (28 PTS) 119–110
Q4 1:06 J. Brown Free Throw 1 of 2 (27 PTS) 118–110

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

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 37.3m
18
pts
11
reb
8
ast
Impact
+17.7

Exceptional defensive versatility (+5.9 Def) and high-IQ playmaking from the elbows anchored a robust +3.2 overall impact. He consistently collapsed the defense with physical drives before making the right read, elevating the entire unit's shot quality. His ability to switch onto smaller guards on the perimeter neutralized the opponent's primary pick-and-roll actions.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Scoring +13.5
Creation +3.0
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +14.0
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Brandon Ingram 35.2m
30
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.4

Scoring volume completely masked the underlying damage caused by live-ball turnovers and defensive lapses, resulting in a deceptive -1.5 net impact. While he broke out of a recent slump by hunting midrange mismatches, he gave those points right back by getting lost on back-door cuts. The heavy offensive load he carried came at the steep cost of overall team flow and ball security.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Scoring +22.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +7.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
11
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.2

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers derailed his offensive rhythm, as multiple empty trips from beyond the arc heavily penalized his net rating (-3.7). Although he provided solid point-of-attack hustle (+3.9), his inability to bend the defense off the dribble stagnated the half-court offense. Opponents consistently went under screens, daring him to shoot and neutralizing his playmaking.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Scoring +7.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jakob Poeltl 24.8m
10
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

Relentless screen-setting and elite hustle metrics (+5.2) kept his impact firmly in the positive despite an uncharacteristic dip in finishing efficiency. He generated numerous second-chance opportunities by outworking his matchup on the offensive glass. Even when his touch around the rim faltered, his positional defense deterred multiple drives into the paint.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -36.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ja'Kobe Walter 11.9m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.4

A complete inability to generate offensive separation or defensive resistance resulted in a disastrous -9.8 impact score during his minutes. He looked entirely out of rhythm, forcing bad passes and missing rotations that led to wide-open corner threes. The game simply moved too fast for him during this disastrous rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -67.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.6

Excellent spatial awareness and timely rolls to the rim fueled a highly efficient offensive showing that anchored his +4.7 impact score. He consistently found the soft spots in the opponent's zone coverage, converting high-percentage looks in the paint. Solid positional defense (+4.6 Def) ensured he wasn't giving those points back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +27.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +7.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Shead 22.4m
9
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.3

Off-the-charts hustle metrics (+8.4) completely drove this highly effective performance, overcoming mediocre shooting efficiency. He was an absolute pest in the backcourt, generating deflections and diving for loose balls that swung momentum in crucial swing moments. This relentless energy translated directly into a stellar +4.4 overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +5.1
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Ochai Agbaji 22.2m
11
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Capitalizing on hard baseline cuts and transition leaks, he shattered his recent scoring slump to post a dominant +6.3 net impact. His off-ball movement constantly punished defensive ball-watching, while his +5.2 hustle rating reflected multiple extra-effort plays on the glass. He perfectly executed his role as a high-energy finisher who didn't need plays called for him.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Scoring +8.4
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
A.J. Lawson 13.5m
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Defensive breakdowns (-2.5 Def) and a complete lack of hustle plays entirely negated his scoring punch off the bench. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation sets, bleeding points at a rate that dragged his overall impact into the red (-2.3). The offensive burst was purely cosmetic given how much he surrendered on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +5.4
Defense -4.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.2

Total offensive passivity rendered him a liability on the floor, as he failed to attempt a single shot and allowed defenders to completely ignore him. Without his spacing gravity, the driving lanes evaporated for his teammates, dragging his overall impact down to -3.4. He struggled to stay in front of his man on the other end, compounding the negative stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.8

A shocking disappearance from the offense snapped a highly efficient recent stretch, as he failed to even look at the rim during his brief stint. This lack of aggression allowed the defense to double-team elsewhere, stalling the unit's momentum and resulting in a -2.4 impact score. He was essentially a non-factor in a game where his interior presence was desperately needed.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.8

High-intensity defensive pressure (+3.0 Def) during a micro-stint managed to keep his overall impact slightly positive (+0.7) despite offering nothing offensively. He locked down his assignment on the perimeter to disrupt the opponent's late-clock sets. His energy was disruptive enough to justify the brief rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 38.9m
30
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+25.1

Elite two-way wing play drove a massive +11.3 overall impact, anchored by suffocating perimeter defense (+6.6 Def) that disrupted the opponent's primary actions. Continuing a dominant offensive stretch, his ability to hunt high-value mismatches created a massive mathematical advantage in the half-court. He completely controlled the tempo whenever he acted as the primary initiator.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Scoring +23.7
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +5.9
Hustle +9.2
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
15
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+11.7

Despite generating excellent defensive metrics (+5.5 Def), hidden costs like defensive foul trouble and poor transition spacing ultimately dragged his net impact into the red (-1.0). His perimeter shot selection was slightly forced against tight closeouts, leading to empty possessions that fueled fast breaks for the opponent. He struggled to contain dribble penetration during crucial second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +19.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Derrick White 37.3m
27
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.0

A massive spike in offensive aggression yielded mixed results, as a high volume of missed perimeter attempts nearly canceled out his elite hustle metrics (+7.2). He snapped out of a recent scoring slump by hunting his own shot, but the sheer number of low-percentage pull-ups limited his overall net impact (+0.2). His relentless ball pressure at the point of attack remained a bright spot in an otherwise erratic stint.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 6/15 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Scoring +18.9
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +8.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -12.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 5
S Neemias Queta 33.7m
11
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.9

Relentless interior physicality dictated his strong +4.5 net rating, as he consistently won the battle for positioning in the paint. Maintaining his highly efficient finishing streak, his shot selection was strictly limited to high-percentage looks at the rim. Opponents struggled to navigate his rim protection (+5.5 Def) throughout the night, forcing them into contested floaters.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +14.0
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Jordan Walsh 26.0m
9
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.0

Defensive activity (+5.1 Def) and timely hustle plays kept his overall impact in the green during his rotational minutes. A significant uptick in offensive aggression resulted in high-quality shot selection that repeatedly punished late defensive rotations. His length was a constant disruptive force in the passing lanes, sparking multiple transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +25.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.7
Defense +2.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Sam Hauser 26.2m
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

One-dimensional shot selection entirely outside the arc made him highly predictable, allowing the defense to stay home and limit his overall effectiveness (-1.5 Total). While he provided solid weak-side defensive rotations (+4.8 Def), his inability to attack closeouts stalled the offensive flow. The lack of rim pressure ultimately outweighed his floor-spacing gravity.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

Poor shot quality and a complete lack of hustle plays (+0.0) cratered his net impact to a team-worst -4.8. Forcing heavily contested perimeter looks early in the shot clock resulted in nine empty trips that directly fed the opponent's transition game. He was frequently targeted on defensive switches, offering little resistance at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -30.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Minott 10.8m
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.8

Passive offensive involvement caused a steep drop-off from his recent scoring tear, rendering him nearly invisible during his stint. Failing to assert himself in the half-court offense, his lack of spacing gravity allowed defenders to pack the paint and disrupt driving lanes. A few missed defensive assignments further dragged his overall impact into the negative (-1.9).

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -56.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.8

Brief rotational minutes were marred by offensive invisibility, causing a noticeable dip in lineup efficiency (-2.1 Total). He failed to register any meaningful pressure on the rim or the perimeter, allowing his primary defender to act as a free safety. Despite marginal hustle contributions, his inability to threaten the defense made him a liability.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Maximized a tiny rotational window by aggressively attacking the basket for a quick burst of highly efficient offense. This flawless micro-stint generated a massive +3.9 impact score relative to his time on the floor. His immediate readiness to exploit defensive gaps off the bench defined the brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0