Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

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

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Brown Hard 11/25 -0.5
Simons Hard 5/13 +3.2
Pritchard Hard 6/13 +2.2
White Hard 5/13 +1.1
Hauser Hard 5/7 +8.2
Garza 5/6 +4.4
Queta 5/6 +4.0
González 1/2 +0.8
Scheierman Hard 1/1 +1.9
Walsh Hard 0/1 -0.9

SAC SAC Shot-making Δ

DeRozan Hard 9/16 +5.2
Murray Hard 3/13 -4.6
Schröder Hard 7/12 +5.9
Westbrook Hard 3/11 -2.3
Ellis Hard 6/10 +4.9
Achiuwa Hard 5/9 +3.2
Raynaud 5/8 +2.0
Eubanks 2/2 +2.0
Monk Hard 0/2 -1.7
Clifford Hard 0/2 -1.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BOS
SAC
44/87 Field Goals 40/85
50.6% Field Goal % 47.1%
17/41 3-Pointers 12/36
41.5% 3-Point % 33.3%
15/18 Free Throws 14/15
83.3% Free Throw % 93.3%
63.2% True Shooting % 57.9%
54 Total Rebounds 39
5 Offensive 8
35 Defensive 24
25 Assists 29
1.92 Assist/TO Ratio 3.22
12 Turnovers 9
8 Steals 7
6 Blocks 2
12 Fouls 17
50 Points in Paint 40
9 Fast Break Pts 11
9 Points off TOs 11
8 Second Chance Pts 13
46 Bench Points 38
14 Largest Lead 8
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
DeMar DeRozan
25 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 34.5 MIN
+25.6
2
Derrick White
16 PTS · 5 REB · 7 AST · 34.5 MIN
+18.73
3
Sam Hauser
15 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 29.4 MIN
+17.55
4
Luka Garza
11 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 25.4 MIN
+16.93
5
Precious Achiuwa
14 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 21.7 MIN
+15.38
6
Neemias Queta
13 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 22.6 MIN
+14.77
7
Payton Pritchard
16 PTS · 3 REB · 6 AST · 30.7 MIN
+13.6
8
Dennis Schröder
18 PTS · 3 REB · 7 AST · 27.9 MIN
+13.38
9
Maxime Raynaud
12 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 34.7 MIN
+12.98
10
Keon Ellis
16 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 27.0 MIN
+10.49
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:19 BOS shot clock Team TURNOVER 120–106
Q4 0:41 S. Hauser REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 120–106
Q4 0:44 MISS D. DeRozan 28' 3PT 120–106
Q4 0:53 N. Queta DUNK (13 PTS) (P. Pritchard 6 AST) 120–106
Q4 1:14 N. Queta REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 118–106
Q4 1:17 MISS D. Schröder 28' pullup 3PT 118–106
Q4 1:23 N. Queta Free Throw 2 of 2 (11 PTS) 118–106
Q4 1:23 TEAM offensive REBOUND 117–106
Q4 1:23 MISS N. Queta Free Throw 1 of 2 117–106
Q4 1:23 R. Westbrook loose ball personal FOUL (5 PF) (Queta 2 FT) 117–106
Q4 1:23 TEAM offensive REBOUND 117–106
Q4 1:24 MISS P. Pritchard 27' step back 3PT 117–106
Q4 1:41 P. Pritchard REBOUND (Off:2 Def:1) 117–106
Q4 1:46 MISS R. Westbrook 26' 3PT 117–106
Q4 1:53 P. Pritchard 11' pullup Jump Shot (16 PTS) 117–106

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

Why this game is worth arguing about

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Keegan Murray 37.8m
7
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.1

A disastrous shooting performance completely torpedoed his overall value, as a mountain of clanked shots fueled the opponent's transition attack. Even with respectable defensive and hustle metrics, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions dragged his net impact into the abyss. His inability to find any rhythm as a scorer was the glaring weak point of the lineup.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 26.9%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +4.7
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Maxime Raynaud 34.7m
12
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.1

Provided steady, efficient interior scoring but struggled to translate that into a dominant overall impact. While his defensive positioning was solid, a lack of elite playmaking or disruptive hustle plays kept his net rating hovering right around neutral. He executed his role adequately without forcing the issue or making game-breaking mistakes.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +9.2
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S DeMar DeRozan 34.5m
25
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+24.1

Picked apart the defense with surgical precision in the midrange, driving a massive box score impact through elite shot creation. His offensive gravity opened up the floor for teammates, while sneaky defensive activity and hustle plays further boosted his value. This was a masterclass in methodical, high-efficiency half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -20.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +20.2
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +5.6
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-13.7

Reckless perimeter shooting and defensive lapses severely punished the team during his minutes. By settling for a barrage of three-point attempts and missing nearly all of them, he consistently bailed out the defense and sparked opponent fast breaks. His negative defensive impact compounded the offensive inefficiency, resulting in a disastrous overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -28.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense -2.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.8

Wreaked havoc in the paint with relentless energy, generating massive defensive and hustle scores in limited action. His physical rim-running and disciplined shot selection continued a highly efficient offensive trend. The combination of high-motor rebounding and stifling interior defense made him a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +11.5
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
18
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.6

Orchestrated the offense with excellent pace, breaking out of a recent slump with highly efficient penetration and finishing. While his defensive impact was modest, his ability to consistently collapse the defense and kick out drove his positive rating. The quality of his shot selection was the primary catalyst for his success.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.3%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +14.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Keon Ellis 27.0m
16
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Energized the lineup with phenomenal hustle metrics and opportunistic spot-up shooting. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns by knocking down open looks at a high clip, significantly outperforming his recent averages. His constant off-ball movement and defensive activity cemented a highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Scoring +12.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.2

Completely abandoned his recent scoring form, failing to register a single point on minimal attempts. However, he managed to salvage a neutral overall impact through highly disruptive defensive rotations and relentless hustle. His commitment to doing the dirty work prevented his offensive disappearing act from hurting the team.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.2

Maximized a very brief rotation stint by finishing perfectly around the rim and crashing the glass effectively. His mistake-free minutes provided a reliable interior presence without demanding the ball. A solid burst of energy and hustle ensured his limited time was a net positive.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Malik Monk 6.4m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.4

Suffered a complete power outage during a highly ineffective cameo. Missed his limited shot attempts and failed to generate any defensive or hustle statistics, leading to a sharp negative impact. The complete lack of offensive rhythm or secondary effort defined this brief, forgettable stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 34.8m
29
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.7

Heavy volume from beyond the arc cratered his overall efficiency, as a barrage of missed three-pointers dragged down his net impact. While his scoring output looked robust on the surface, the sheer number of empty possessions from forced jumpers severely hampered Boston's offensive rhythm. His inability to translate high usage into positive point differential defined the performance.

Shooting
FG 11/25 (44.0%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.6%
USG% 40.7%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Scoring +18.6
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +6.9
Hustle +6.9
Defense -6.5
Turnovers -12.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Derrick White 34.5m
16
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+11.6

Elite defensive playmaking and relentless hustle metrics completely overshadowed a mediocre shooting night. He disrupted opposing actions consistently, generating a massive defensive impact that swung momentum in Boston's favor. His ability to impact winning through sheer activity level and smart rotations remains his defining trait.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +24.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +10.6
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +5.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
16
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.2

Poor shot selection from the perimeter heavily taxed his offensive value, as a string of missed threes offset his playmaking contributions. Despite generating solid box score metrics, the empty possessions from deep prevented him from posting a positive net impact. He struggled to find the right balance between aggressive hunting and offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Neemias Queta 22.6m
13
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.7

Anchored the interior with exceptional defensive positioning, generating a massive defensive impact score. His flawless shot selection around the rim punished defensive rotations, continuing a strong streak of high-percentage finishing. Active hustle plays on both ends compounded his value far beyond his scoring total.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.3%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Jordan Walsh 5.1m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.1

Barely registered during his brief stint, failing to generate any meaningful offensive traction. A single missed shot and lack of secondary stats kept his overall impact firmly in the negative. His defensive positioning offered a slight positive, but not enough to salvage the minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -55.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.5

Inefficient finishing inside the arc severely dampened his overall effectiveness, negating a solid night shooting from deep. While he provided adequate defensive resistance and decent hustle metrics, the volume of missed two-pointers created too many transition opportunities for the opponent. His inability to score efficiently in traffic ultimately drove his negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Scoring +8.9
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Sam Hauser 29.4m
15
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.2

Punished defensive lapses with lethal precision from the perimeter, maximizing his offensive impact through pristine shot selection. Surprisingly, his off-ball defensive rotations generated a massive defensive score, proving he was far more than just a floor spacer. This two-way efficiency made him one of the most impactful players on the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 107.1%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg +25.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +13.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 25.4m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.2

Dominated his minutes with hyper-efficient interior finishing and excellent defensive positioning. His constant motor yielded strong hustle metrics, allowing him to capitalize on second-chance opportunities and loose balls. Continuing a stellar streak of high-percentage shooting, he maximized every offensive touch while anchoring the paint defensively.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +32.7
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Operated primarily as a passenger within the offensive flow, rarely asserting himself during his extended action. While his defensive metrics were mildly positive, the lack of offensive aggression or playmaking left his overall impact in the red. He failed to tilt the floor in any meaningful direction when given the opportunity.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg +50.3
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.8

Barely left a footprint during a brief rotation stint, managing just a single field goal attempt. A complete lack of secondary statistical generation or defensive disruption kept his net impact firmly negative. He simply floated on the perimeter without altering the geometry of the defense.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1