Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
BOS lead POR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
POR 2P — 3P —
BOS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 168 attempts

POR POR Shot-making Δ

Love 5/14 -3.6
Camara Hard 6/13 +1.4
Sharpe Hard 3/12 -4.3
Holiday Hard 5/11 +2.3
Grant 4/9 -0.3
Clingan 4/9 -1.0
Rupert 1/4 -2.4
Williams III Open 3/3 +2.6
Cissoko 1/2 -0.5
Cooke Hard 0/1 -0.9

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Brown Hard 8/17 +1.6
Pritchard Hard 8/16 +5.5
White 7/14 +1.8
Simons Hard 5/12 +0.5
Hauser Hard 4/12 -0.3
Williams Open 3/8 -3.6
Queta 2/6 -2.0
González 1/2 -0.3
Scheierman Open 1/2 -0.3
Walsh Hard 0/1 -0.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
POR
BOS
32/78 Field Goals 39/90
41.0% Field Goal % 43.3%
10/40 3-Pointers 13/34
25.0% 3-Point % 38.2%
20/30 Free Throws 11/18
66.7% Free Throw % 61.1%
51.5% True Shooting % 52.1%
55 Total Rebounds 59
11 Offensive 10
35 Defensive 31
17 Assists 24
0.94 Assist/TO Ratio 1.41
18 Turnovers 17
11 Steals 11
8 Blocks 4
22 Fouls 21
36 Points in Paint 40
13 Fast Break Pts 16
15 Points off TOs 19
12 Second Chance Pts 15
40 Bench Points 26
0 Largest Lead 23
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jaylen Brown
20 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 36.2 MIN
+22.63
2
Payton Pritchard
23 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 34.7 MIN
+17.1
3
Toumani Camara
18 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 36.2 MIN
+16.05
4
Jrue Holiday
14 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 24.4 MIN
+12.59
5
Jerami Grant
19 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 26.6 MIN
+12.3
6
Sam Hauser
11 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 29.7 MIN
+10.32
7
Anfernee Simons
12 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 26.4 MIN
+9.66
8
Donovan Clingan
9 PTS · 15 REB · 1 AST · 28.3 MIN
+8.73
9
Robert Williams III
6 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 19.7 MIN
+8.65
10
Amari Williams
9 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 25.9 MIN
+4.06
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:10 S. Hauser REBOUND (Off:0 Def:7) 94–102
Q4 0:12 MISS T. Camara 25' pullup 3PT 94–102
Q4 0:17 T. Camara STEAL (3 STL) 94–102
Q4 0:17 D. White lost ball TURNOVER (9 TO) 94–102
Q4 0:21 D. White STEAL (2 STL) 94–102
Q4 0:21 T. Camara bad pass TURNOVER (2 TO) 94–102
Q4 0:24 D. White 28' 3PT (18 PTS) (S. Hauser 3 AST) 94–102
Q4 0:41 T. Camara Free Throw 2 of 2 (18 PTS) 94–99
Q4 0:41 T. Camara Free Throw 1 of 2 (17 PTS) 93–99
Q4 0:41 A. Simons personal FOUL (1 PF) (Camara 2 FT) 92–99
Q4 0:42 R. Williams III STEAL (2 STL) 92–99
Q4 0:42 D. White lost ball TURNOVER (8 TO) 92–99
Q4 1:03 J. Grant driving Layup (19 PTS) 92–99
Q4 1:09 T. Camara REBOUND (Off:2 Def:6) 90–99
Q4 1:12 MISS J. Grant Free Throw 1 of 1 90–99

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 36.2m
20
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+22.9

Suffocating on-ball pressure completely neutralized his primary matchup and set a physical tone for the perimeter defense. He leveraged his strength perfectly on drives, bullying smaller defenders to collapse the paint and create high-value kickouts.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense +7.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
23
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.1

Deep drop coverage was repeatedly punished by his quick-trigger pull-up shooting in pick-and-roll situations. His relentless pace in transition kept the opponent scrambling and unable to set their half-court defense.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Scoring +16.1
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Derrick White 34.5m
18
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.4

Defensive miscommunications and mistimed gambles in the passing lanes led to easy back-door scores, dragging his total impact into the red. Even with active hands, giving up straight-line drives compromised the rim protection.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +13.2
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.5
Turnovers -21.3
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 9
S Sam Hauser 29.7m
11
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.1

Constant off-ball motion warped the opposing defensive shell, opening up backdoor cuts and driving lanes for teammates. His surprisingly stout positional defense and quick closeouts prevented spot-up shooters from finding any rhythm.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Neemias Queta 22.1m
4
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.5

Operated effectively as an offensive hub from the high post, picking apart defensive coverages with sharp interior passing. While his own scoring touch was off, his ability to execute dribble hand-offs kept the offensive engine humming.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -6.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
12
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.2

Showcased rare defensive engagement by fighting through multiple screens and staying attached to movement shooters. This commitment to trailing plays negated his usual defensive shortcomings and stabilized the backcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Walled off the paint effectively by maintaining verticality against driving guards. His solid screen-setting created crucial separation for ball-handlers, though a few fumbled catches in traffic limited his overall upside.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.1%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.8

Struggled to navigate complex screening actions, frequently getting caught on picks and forcing teammates into emergency switches. A lack of assertiveness on the offensive end made him easy to ignore in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg +61.4
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

Targeted relentlessly in isolation, his inability to slide his feet against quicker wings bled points on the defensive end. While he crashed the glass hard, the defensive bleeding outweighed his rebounding contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -47.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +5.4
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.1

Rushed decisions and a lack of spatial awareness marred a very brief appearance on the floor. He repeatedly clogged driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers, short-circuiting the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 36.2m
18
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.1

Relentless energy on the margins drove a massive positive impact, specifically through second-chance generation and loose-ball recoveries. He consistently beat his man to the spot in transition, turning defensive stops into immediate offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Scoring +12.5
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Shaedon Sharpe 34.3m
9
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.4

Poor shot selection and a heavy diet of contested jumpers tanked his overall value. Forcing the issue against set defenses led to long rebounds that repeatedly ignited the opponent's transition attack.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Donovan Clingan 28.3m
9
pts
15
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.8

Anchored the interior with elite rim deterrence, completely altering the opponent's shot profile in the half-court. His massive frame forced guards into heavily contested floaters rather than high-value layups, driving a stellar defensive rating.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -28.4
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +13.2
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 3
S Sidy Cissoko 24.8m
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.9

Offensive passivity severely hampered the team's spacing, rendering him a liability despite adequate defensive effort. His reluctance to look for his own shot allowed defenders to freely sag into the paint and disrupt driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jrue Holiday 24.4m
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.0

Point-of-attack disruption was the defining feature of this stint, constantly blowing up dribble hand-offs and ball-screen actions. Even with a dip in his usual scoring volume, his ability to navigate screens kept the defensive shell intact.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +5.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Jerami Grant 26.6m
19
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.1

Methodical isolation scoring against mismatches stabilized the half-court offense during stagnant stretches. He consistently punished switches by drawing contact and getting to his spots in the mid-post.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 10/15 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.9%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +13.0
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Caleb Love 25.8m
11
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.1

Settling for early-clock, contested perimeter looks derailed offensive rhythm and fueled a negative overall rating. The sheer volume of empty possessions outweighed a handful of flashy isolation conversions.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Provided a reliable vertical spacing threat that forced the opposing frontcourt to stay tethered to the restricted area. His timely weak-side rotations snuffed out multiple driving angles before they could materialize into scoring chances.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Rayan Rupert 15.8m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.0

Struggled to process defensive reads quickly enough, resulting in stalled possessions and late-clock desperation attempts. A lack of offensive gravity allowed his primary defender to roam and double-team more dangerous threats.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -7.3
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.8

Injected immediate physicality during a brief rotation stint by aggressively fighting over screens. His willingness to sacrifice his body on loose balls kept the overall impact slightly in the green despite zero offensive production.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0