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 182 attempts

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Pritchard Hard 13/24 +8.4
White Hard 5/20 -4.0
Simons Hard 6/15 -0.5
González Open 5/9 -1.8
Garza Open 4/9 -3.6
Queta Open 7/7 +5.2
Hauser Hard 2/6 +1.3
Minott Hard 1/2 +1.0
Scheierman 1/2 -0.3
Walsh Hard 0/1 -0.9

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Ingram Hard 10/17 +7.1
Barnes 5/15 -4.4
Mamukelashvili 9/13 +9.3
Quickley Hard 1/12 -8.7
Murray-Boyles Open 4/8 -1.1
Walter Hard 2/6 -0.9
Shead Hard 2/5 +0.8
Agbaji 1/5 -4.0
Dick 2/4 -0.3
Battle Hard 0/1 -0.3
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BOS
TOR
44/95 Field Goals 36/87
46.3% Field Goal % 41.4%
12/39 3-Pointers 16/47
30.8% 3-Point % 34.0%
12/15 Free Throws 8/11
80.0% Free Throw % 72.7%
55.1% True Shooting % 52.3%
61 Total Rebounds 48
17 Offensive 9
38 Defensive 28
22 Assists 30
2.00 Assist/TO Ratio 2.50
9 Turnovers 12
7 Steals 2
4 Blocks 7
21 Fouls 18
54 Points in Paint 32
10 Fast Break Pts 10
19 Points off TOs 8
23 Second Chance Pts 17
44 Bench Points 27
16 Largest Lead 7
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Payton Pritchard
33 PTS · 7 REB · 10 AST · 37.0 MIN
+31.0
2
Sandro Mamukelashvili
24 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 29.8 MIN
+17.56
3
Brandon Ingram
24 PTS · 4 REB · 7 AST · 35.2 MIN
+16.37
4
Luka Garza
12 PTS · 10 REB · 2 AST · 25.7 MIN
+14.53
5
Neemias Queta
14 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 22.1 MIN
+13.78
6
Hugo González
10 PTS · 10 REB · 0 AST · 27.8 MIN
+13.15
7
Anfernee Simons
15 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 26.0 MIN
+12.96
8
Collin Murray-Boyles
9 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 22.7 MIN
+9.79
9
Gradey Dick
5 PTS · 0 REB · 1 AST · 13.3 MIN
+4.55
10
Derrick White
15 PTS · 5 REB · 7 AST · 35.9 MIN
+4.52
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:21 BOS shot clock Team TURNOVER 112–96
Q4 0:42 P. Pritchard REBOUND (Off:2 Def:5) 112–96
Q4 0:46 MISS J. Walter 25' 3PT 112–96
Q4 1:02 P. Pritchard tip Layup (33 PTS) 112–96
Q4 1:02 P. Pritchard REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 110–96
Q4 1:03 MISS A. Simons driving floating Shot 110–96
Q4 1:05 A. Simons REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 110–96
Q4 1:09 MISS P. Pritchard 8' turnaround fadeaway Shot 110–96
Q4 1:30 S. Hauser REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 110–96
Q4 1:34 MISS G. Temple 25' running pullup 3PT 110–96
Q4 1:37 G. Temple REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 110–96
Q4 1:42 MISS S. Hauser 27' 3PT 110–96
Q4 2:00 N. Queta REBOUND (Off:2 Def:3) 110–96
Q4 2:06 MISS I. Quickley 10' driving floating Shot 110–96
Q4 2:12 P. Pritchard Free Throw 2 of 2 (31 PTS) 110–96

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 Brandon Ingram 35.2m
24
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+12.9

Highly efficient mid-range shot creation fueled a strong box score impact, punishing defenders who went under screens. While his scoring was clinical, relatively quiet defensive and hustle metrics kept his overall rating from reaching elite territory.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.1%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Scoring +18.5
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +6.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Scottie Barnes 33.1m
12
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.3

Clanking forced jumpers and struggling to finish through contact severely damaged his offensive value. Even though he provided solid defensive resistance, the sheer volume of wasted possessions on the other end dragged his overall impact deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +9.5
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
3
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-6.6

Disastrous shooting efficiency torpedoed his impact, as he repeatedly short-circuited offensive sets with rushed perimeter looks. Outstanding hustle and decent defensive metrics were completely overshadowed by the sheer volume of empty trips he generated.

Shooting
FG 1/12 (8.3%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 12.5%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Scoring -5.2
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
24
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.7

Lethal floor-spacing from the frontcourt completely warped the opposing defense and drove a massive positive rating. His ability to knock down trail threes at a high clip, combined with excellent hustle in transition, made him an offensive juggernaut.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.3%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Scoring +20.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense -1.7
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Ochai Agbaji 27.1m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

A complete lack of rhythm on the perimeter resulted in empty offensive possessions that stalled team momentum. Offering virtually nothing in terms of hustle or defensive playmaking, his minutes were a noticeable drain on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 23.6m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.2

Despite flying around the court to generate elite hustle metrics, his inability to bend the defense ultimately resulted in a negative rating. Poor defensive positioning and a lack of offensive gravity negated the sheer energy he brought to the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -37.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.2

Steady interior finishing and smart connective passing kept the offense flowing during his shifts. He didn't force the issue, taking what the defense gave him in the paint to post a quietly effective positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -46.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +7.6
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

Inefficient shot selection and a total lack of peripheral contributions dragged his impact into the negative. He operated with tunnel vision on offense while offering zero resistance or hustle on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -95.2
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Gradey Dick 13.3m
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.7

Timely off-ball movement and energetic hustle plays allowed him to be a slight positive in a limited role. He maximized his short stint by staying within the flow of the offense and avoiding costly mistakes on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -83.5
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.7

Invisible during his brief time on the court, failing to register any meaningful hustle or offensive production. The lack of engagement on either end made him a net negative during a highly forgettable stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.3

A rushed, missed shot during a microscopic stint on the floor was enough to dip his impact into the red. He simply wasn't out there long enough to establish any sort of positive rhythm or defensive presence.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
33
pts
7
reb
10
ast
Impact
+31.2

Exceptional shot creation and relentless scoring volume fueled a massive positive impact, completely overwhelming opposing guards. He dictated the tempo of the game by consistently generating high-quality looks for himself out of the pick-and-roll.

Shooting
FG 13/24 (54.2%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Scoring +25.2
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +8.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Derrick White 35.9m
15
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.0

Severe shot-selection issues and bricked perimeter jumpers torpedoed his overall value despite strong defensive metrics. Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock negated the positive equity he built through excellent point-of-attack defense.

Shooting
FG 5/20 (25.0%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.7%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Sam Hauser 27.4m
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

A steep drop in offensive aggression and perimeter efficiency tanked his overall value, as he failed to punish closeouts. The lack of scoring gravity wasn't offset by his mediocre hustle metrics, rendering him largely invisible during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +6.7
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 22.1m
14
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.5

Flawless finishing around the rim drove a massive box score impact, punishing the interior defense on every touch. His ability to convert high-percentage looks in the dunker spot without forcing bad shots anchored a highly efficient stint.

Shooting
FG 7/7 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.1%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -25.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Scoring +13.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jordan Walsh 12.7m
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.6

Complete passivity cratered his impact score, as he actively avoided touches and failed to generate any offensive production. Though he offered slight resistance on the defensive end, playing essentially 4-on-5 on offense made his minutes a heavy negative.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -50.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.9

Outstanding defensive positioning and strong rebounding fundamentals anchored a highly productive shift. He capitalized on his physical tools to disrupt passing lanes and clean up the defensive glass, providing a massive boost compared to his usual baseline.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +72.6
+/- +37
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +11.7
Defense +2.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.0

Poor perimeter efficiency dragged down what could have been a dominant scoring night, as he settled for heavily contested deep looks. However, surprisingly stout defensive rotations managed to keep his overall impact slightly in the green.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +64.4
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Scoring +8.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 25.7m
12
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.9

Relentless activity on the glass and elite hustle metrics drove a highly impactful performance in the frontcourt. He created crucial second-chance opportunities and outworked his matchups in the paint to generate massive positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +48.6
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Scoring +6.9
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +12.7
Defense -1.7
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Josh Minott 17.4m
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Fading into the background offensively limited his ability to positively influence the game. While he didn't make glaring mistakes, his lack of aggression and low usage rate prevented him from making a meaningful dent in the overall impact metrics.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +37.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.8

Elite hustle in a microscopic sample size propped up his overall impact score. He threw his body around on loose balls and made the extra effort in transition, proving highly disruptive despite barely touching the ball offensively.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +56.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1