Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
UTA lead BOS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
BOS 2P — 3P —
UTA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 181 attempts

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Brown Hard 9/19 +1.4
White Hard 8/16 +2.9
Pritchard Hard 8/15 +3.2
Simons Hard 6/15 +0.8
Garza 6/8 +5.2
Hauser Hard 2/8 -3.4
Queta Open 6/7 +4.3
Walsh Hard 2/4 +0.5
González Hard 1/2 +0.8

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

George Hard 13/24 +7.9
Markkanen 6/16 -2.6
Nurkić 10/11 +11.6
Sensabaugh Hard 2/9 -4.2
Filipowski Hard 3/8 -0.6
Clayton Jr. Hard 3/7 +0.1
Collier 3/5 +1.2
Hendricks Hard 1/4 -1.5
Williams 0/3 -3.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BOS
UTA
48/94 Field Goals 41/87
51.1% Field Goal % 47.1%
13/44 3-Pointers 16/42
29.5% 3-Point % 38.1%
20/23 Free Throws 21/25
87.0% Free Throw % 84.0%
61.9% True Shooting % 60.7%
51 Total Rebounds 49
11 Offensive 9
33 Defensive 31
27 Assists 31
3.38 Assist/TO Ratio 2.38
7 Turnovers 13
8 Steals 4
9 Blocks 3
17 Fouls 17
56 Points in Paint 46
7 Fast Break Pts 12
23 Points off TOs 5
16 Second Chance Pts 12
43 Bench Points 26
11 Largest Lead 12
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Derrick White
27 PTS · 7 REB · 6 AST · 36.3 MIN
+30.64
2
Keyonte George
37 PTS · 6 REB · 7 AST · 38.5 MIN
+29.55
3
Jusuf Nurkić
26 PTS · 8 REB · 8 AST · 33.8 MIN
+25.94
4
Lauri Markkanen
22 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 38.3 MIN
+23.21
5
Jaylen Brown
23 PTS · 6 REB · 10 AST · 33.6 MIN
+20.69
6
Luka Garza
15 PTS · 6 REB · 0 AST · 18.5 MIN
+20.04
7
Payton Pritchard
18 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 35.4 MIN
+17.72
8
Anfernee Simons
20 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 28.0 MIN
+17.22
9
Neemias Queta
12 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 28.7 MIN
+14.97
10
Isaiah Collier
7 PTS · 6 REB · 8 AST · 24.2 MIN
+6.86
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:08 BOS shot clock Team TURNOVER 129–119
Q4 0:29 D. White REBOUND (Off:2 Def:5) 129–119
Q4 0:32 D. White BLOCK (7 BLK) 129–119
Q4 0:32 MISS W. Clayton Jr. driving Layup - blocked 129–119
Q4 0:41 D. White Free Throw 2 of 2 (27 PTS) 129–119
Q4 0:41 D. White Free Throw 1 of 2 (26 PTS) 128–119
Q4 0:41 C. Williams personal FOUL (1 PF) (White 2 FT) 127–119
Q4 0:59 K. George 25' 3PT pullup (37 PTS) 127–119
Q4 1:06 K. George REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 127–116
Q4 1:08 MISS J. Brown 15' turnaround Shot 127–116
Q4 1:25 A. Simons REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 127–116
Q4 1:27 MISS L. Markkanen Jump Shot 127–116
Q4 1:40 J. Brown 14' fadeaway Jump Shot (23 PTS) 127–116
Q4 2:00 N. Queta REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 125–116
Q4 2:00 MISS K. George 25' pullup 3PT 125–116

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

UTA Utah Jazz
5
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.3

A disastrous overall performance (-20.9 impact) was defined by forced, low-quality perimeter shots that completely derailed the offense. Coming off a hot streak, his sudden inability to create separation resulted in empty possessions that fed directly into opponent transition runs.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 12.6%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -4.7
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Keyonte George 38.5m
37
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+29.5

Explosive shot-making from all three levels drove a dominant offensive showing that overwhelmed the opposing backcourt. His ability to break down primary defenders in isolation consistently warped the defense, creating a massive net positive impact.

Shooting
FG 13/24 (54.2%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Scoring +28.7
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +9.6
Hustle +7.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -7.1
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Lauri Markkanen 38.3m
22
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.2

Despite struggling to find his rhythm from the floor, a stellar defensive effort (+8.4 impact) salvaged his night. He used his length effectively to disrupt passing lanes and generated crucial extra possessions through active, high-motor hustle.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Scoring +14.6
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +3.7
Defense +3.7
Turnovers +0.0
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jusuf Nurkić 33.8m
26
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
+18.9

Near-perfect shot selection and dominant interior positioning fueled a massive positive impact rating. He systematically dismantled the opposing frontcourt with bruising screens and flawless finishing out of the pick-and-roll.

Shooting
FG 10/11 (90.9%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 98.5%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Scoring +24.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +6.2
Hustle +7.2
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -7.1
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.9

An ongoing slump in shot creation continues to drag down his overall value. While he offered some resistance on the defensive end, his inability to capitalize on open spot-up opportunities crippled the offense's spacing and stalled momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
-7.5

Despite efficient shooting, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive miscommunications and poor ball security. He struggled to navigate screens at the point of attack, giving up easy penetration that compromised the team's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -27.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +5.7
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -4.7
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
7
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.8

Defensive liabilities and poor perimeter shot selection overshadowed his otherwise solid hustle metrics. He was frequently targeted in isolation, bleeding points on one end while failing to stretch the floor effectively on the other.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -39.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Scoring +3.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense -4.5
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

A sharp drop in offensive volume and efficiency from his recent hot streak dragged his impact into the negative. He settled for contested outside looks rather than establishing deep post position, effectively bailing out smaller defenders.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -52.4
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -5.4
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.7

A stark regression from his recent scoring tear left him as a severe minus (-8.8 impact) on the floor. He looked hesitant attacking the paint and failed to generate any meaningful rim pressure, allowing the defense to completely ignore him in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -55.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -1.1
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 36.3m
27
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+22.7

A staggering two-way masterclass was defined by suffocating point-of-attack defense (+11.7 impact) that completely derailed the opposing backcourt. Even with a cold perimeter stroke, his aggressive downhill drives and relentless ball-pressure dictated the game's tempo and fueled a massive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +0.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Scoring +20.7
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.1
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 7
TO 1
18
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.1

Heavy volume from beyond the arc yielded poor returns, neutralizing his otherwise solid offensive creation. His perfectly flat net impact reflects the tug-of-war between his steady playmaking and the empty possessions caused by forced, contested perimeter jumpers.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Scoring +12.3
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jaylen Brown 33.6m
23
pts
6
reb
10
ast
Impact
+16.0

A massive defensive rating (+6.4 impact) anchored his positive value despite a dip from his recent elite scoring volume. He consistently blew up opponent pick-and-roll actions and created transition opportunities through high-level hustle.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +14.7
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +6.7
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -4.7
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Neemias Queta 28.7m
12
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Elite interior finishing and stout rim protection (+6.0 defensive impact) drove a highly efficient two-way performance. His relentless rim-running and high-motor hustle plays punished defensive rotations, continuing a dominant streak of high-percentage execution.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.4
Turnovers -2.4
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jordan Walsh 13.3m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

A quiet rotational stint yielded a negative overall impact (-2.9) largely due to defensive breakdowns on the perimeter. While he hit a couple of timely shots, his inability to disrupt passing lanes or generate secondary hustle plays left the second unit vulnerable during his stretches.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -28.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Scoring +3.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
20
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.2

Volatile shot selection skewed heavily toward the perimeter, limiting his offensive ceiling despite some timely shot-making. However, surprisingly sharp defensive rotations (+3.5 impact) and a knack for finding the open man off drives kept his overall rating in the green.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +43.4
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Scoring +12.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Luka Garza 18.5m
15
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.6

Ruthless offensive execution drove a massive positive impact rating during his short stint on the floor. He consistently abused mismatches in the post and stretched the defense flawlessly, punishing drop coverages every time he touched the ball.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +27.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Scoring +13.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +6.7
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.3

High-energy hustle plays (+2.9 impact) weren't enough to rescue a negative overall rating. His total lack of offensive aggression allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint, severely disrupting the team's half-court flow during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Sam Hauser 17.2m
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

A brutal shooting slump from deep cratered his overall value and stalled the second-unit offense. Without his usual gravity pulling defenders to the perimeter, spacing evaporated, and his minimal hustle contributions couldn't offset the string of empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +5.4
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-20.2

Complete offensive invisibility and poor defensive positioning (-1.6 impact) severely tanked his rating. He repeatedly passed up open looks and frequently lost his man on backdoor cuts, making him a clear liability during his brief run.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1