Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
BOS lead SAC lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
SAC 2P — 3P —
BOS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 176 attempts

SAC SAC Shot-making Δ

Monk Hard 3/14 -5.0
Clifford Hard 5/12 +0.7
Schröder Hard 1/11 -8.1
DeRozan Hard 2/10 -4.6
LaVine Hard 5/9 +2.7
Raynaud 6/7 +6.4
Achiuwa 1/5 -2.8
Ellis Hard 2/4 +1.9
Carter Hard 2/4 +1.0
Cardwell Open 3/4 +0.6

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Pritchard Hard 12/16 +13.7
Simons Hard 6/16 -0.7
Queta Open 4/11 -4.5
Scheierman Hard 6/10 +5.7
Hauser Hard 3/9 -0.8
González Hard 1/8 -5.8
White Hard 3/7 +0.3
Walsh Hard 1/7 -4.1
Garza Open 4/5 +2.3
Boucher Hard 1/3 -0.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
SAC
BOS
31/83 Field Goals 42/93
37.3% Field Goal % 45.2%
10/31 3-Pointers 18/48
32.3% 3-Point % 37.5%
21/23 Free Throws 10/16
91.3% Free Throw % 62.5%
49.9% True Shooting % 56.0%
58 Total Rebounds 53
15 Offensive 14
32 Defensive 30
19 Assists 25
1.19 Assist/TO Ratio 3.57
14 Turnovers 7
4 Steals 7
6 Blocks 5
18 Fouls 17
30 Points in Paint 38
16 Fast Break Pts 12
10 Points off TOs 15
17 Second Chance Pts 14
50 Bench Points 40
0 Largest Lead 31
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Payton Pritchard
29 PTS · 2 REB · 8 AST · 32.6 MIN
+25.72
2
Luka Garza
11 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 15.7 MIN
+19.6
3
Baylor Scheierman
16 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 30.8 MIN
+16.36
4
Maxime Raynaud
14 PTS · 14 REB · 1 AST · 36.1 MIN
+16.31
5
Derrick White
7 PTS · 2 REB · 9 AST · 32.5 MIN
+12.88
6
Zach LaVine
17 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 23.4 MIN
+12.56
7
Neemias Queta
10 PTS · 15 REB · 2 AST · 28.8 MIN
+11.57
8
Dylan Cardwell
8 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 27.6 MIN
+9.22
9
Nique Clifford
15 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 34.0 MIN
+8.07
10
Keon Ellis
6 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 19.8 MIN
+7.56
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 C. Boucher 24' 3PT (3 PTS) (J. Minott 1 AST) 93–112
Q4 0:21 N. Clifford Free Throw 2 of 2 (15 PTS) 93–109
Q4 0:21 N. Clifford Free Throw 1 of 2 (14 PTS) 92–109
Q4 0:21 J. Minott shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Clifford 2 FT) 91–109
Q4 0:33 D. Cardwell REBOUND (Off:4 Def:4) 91–109
Q4 0:37 MISS H. González 28' 3PT 91–109
Q4 0:56 D. Carter 29' 3PT (5 PTS) (N. Clifford 1 AST) 91–109
Q4 1:05 D. Plowden REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 88–109
Q4 1:08 MISS H. González 26' 3PT 88–109
Q4 1:26 J. Walsh REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 88–109
Q4 1:27 MISS D. Carter 11' driving floating Shot 88–109
Q4 1:35 J. Minott 25' 3PT (3 PTS) 88–109
Q4 1:46 D. Cardwell running DUNK (8 PTS) (I. Stevens 1 AST) 88–106
Q4 1:49 I. Stevens STEAL (1 STL) 86–106
Q4 1:49 H. González lost ball TURNOVER (1 TO) 86–106

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

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
29
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+23.6

Absolute offensive mastery dictated this performance, as he torched drop coverages with lethal pull-up precision. His decision-making in the pick-and-roll was flawless, punishing every defensive mistake while operating at peak efficiency. This was a masterclass in exploiting matchups to generate a colossal net positive.

Shooting
FG 12/16 (75.0%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.6%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +31.3
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Scoring +26.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +8.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Derrick White 32.5m
7
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
+3.6

Sacrificing his own scoring volume, he orchestrated the offense masterfully while terrorizing ball-handlers on the perimeter. His exceptional defensive anticipation blew up several set plays, creating transition opportunities out of thin air. The sheer quality of his passing and point-of-attack pressure drove a stellar overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +45.9
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
16
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.5

Shattering his recent scoring slump, a barrage of perfectly timed catch-and-shoot daggers stretched the opposing defense past its breaking point. His constant off-ball movement created driving lanes for teammates, amplifying his value well beyond his own makes. Solid rotational defense ensured his offensive explosion translated directly to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +43.1
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring +13.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sam Hauser 29.5m
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

A cold night from beyond the arc severely dampened his impact, as opponents happily lived with his contested looks. He tried to compensate with relentless closeouts and loose-ball recoveries, generating an impressive hustle rating. Ultimately, the spacing issues caused by his misfires outweighed his gritty peripheral contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +18.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 28.8m
10
pts
15
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.5

An uncharacteristic string of missed bunnies around the rim threatened to derail his night, snapping a streak of elite finishing. However, he completely redeemed himself by erecting an impenetrable wall in the paint, yielding a massive defensive rating. His rim protection and glass-cleaning single-handedly stalled multiple opponent runs.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.2%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +47.2
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +10.3
Defense +5.4
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
16
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Settling for heavily contested bombs from the perimeter ruined his offensive rhythm and let the defense off the hook. The sheer volume of long-range misfires sparked long rebounds and opponent fast breaks, dragging his net rating into the negative. While he flashed some creation ability, the erratic shot diet ultimately harmed the team's halfcourt flow.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.7

An utter inability to connect on open looks paralyzed the offense during his minutes, leading to a catastrophic net rating. Opposing wings aggressively stunted off him, daring him to shoot and completely clogging the driving lanes for his teammates. The resulting stagnant possessions made him a massive liability on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 11.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Scoring -3.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jordan Walsh 15.8m
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Rushing his mechanics on spot-up opportunities led to a brutal shooting display that short-circuited several offensive sets. He fought admirably on the defensive end, using his length to disrupt passing lanes and generate positive hustle metrics. However, the offensive spacing issues he created ultimately outweighed his gritty defensive efforts.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.5%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Luka Garza 15.7m
11
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.0

Utterly dominating his brief stint, he bullied mismatches in the post to continue a remarkable streak of hyper-efficient shooting. He established deep position early in the shot clock, forcing the defense to collapse and scramble. This ruthless exploitation of backup bigs generated an astronomical per-minute impact score.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 87.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +10.2
Defense +1.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.1

Fired away immediately upon entering the game, showcasing a quick trigger that yielded mixed results. His aggression stretched the floor momentarily, but a missed rotation on the defensive end kept his brief cameo slightly in the red. It was a chaotic, high-energy stint that lacked structural discipline.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

Made the absolute most of a microscopic rotation window by drilling his only look from beyond the arc. He executed the offensive set perfectly, providing a quick jolt of spacing before returning to the bench. A brief but flawless injection of perimeter efficiency.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S Maxime Raynaud 36.1m
14
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+20.9

Exceptional shot discipline fueled a highly positive box score impact, extending his streak of hyper-efficient outings. He anchored the interior effectively, pairing strong defensive positioning with reliable finishing on dump-offs and rolls. This low-mistake, high-yield approach stabilized the frontcourt rotation perfectly.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.1%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Scoring +13.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +17.8
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
4
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.3

An absolute inability to buy a bucket cratered his offensive value, continuing a troubling downward trend in his scoring gravity. While he remained pesky on the defensive end to salvage some utility, the sheer volume of bricked perimeter shots killed multiple rallies. Opponents simply sagged off him, wrecking the team's halfcourt spacing and driving a massive negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/11 (9.1%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 16.8%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -54.5
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring -2.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Zach LaVine 23.4m
17
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.5

Attacking the paint with purpose allowed him to overcome a shaky perimeter stroke and post a stellar overall rating. His defensive engagement was surprisingly disruptive, helping to swing momentum during transition sequences. By trading deep contested looks for high-percentage drives, he maximized his floor time and kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -63.6
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Scoring +13.6
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S DeMar DeRozan 18.0m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.3

A severe drop-off in scoring efficiency completely tanked his overall impact, as he struggled to find his usual midrange rhythm. The heavy volume of missed jumpers stalled offensive momentum during his shifts and allowed the defense to set up in transition. Despite decent hustle metrics, his inability to convert quality looks defined a highly negative outing.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 26.5%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -37.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

Relentless activity on the margins generated a massive hustle surplus, but his touch around the rim abandoned him. Breaking a four-game streak of highly efficient finishing, the resulting empty possessions dragged his net impact into the red. He ultimately gave back his extra-effort gains through forced interior attempts that killed halfcourt spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -37.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

A sudden scoring surge inflated his box metrics, but his overall impact plummeted due to costly defensive lapses during key stretches. He hit timely perimeter shots to exceed his usual production, yet consistently struggled to contain penetration on the other end. The resulting defensive breakdowns negated his offensive contributions entirely.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Scoring +9.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Seizing an expanded offensive role, he capitalized on dump-offs while maintaining his usual defensive solidity. His rim deterrence was top-notch, altering several attempts in the paint to fuel transition opportunities. Playing strictly within himself yielded a highly efficient, mistake-free performance that boosted the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Scoring +7.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +10.2
Defense +1.2
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
Malik Monk 23.0m
12
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.2

Forcing the issue against set defenses resulted in a barrage of clanked jumpers that severely damaged offensive flow. His active hands generated some positive hustle events, but they couldn't offset the damage of his erratic shot selection. This was a classic case of a microwave scorer shooting his team out of rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Keon Ellis 19.8m
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

Despite a sharp drop in offensive usage, his suffocating point-of-attack defense kept his overall impact in the green. He perfectly executed his role as a spot-up threat, punishing defensive rotations without demanding touches. This low-maintenance, high-intensity profile provided excellent rotational stability.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Devin Carter 10.8m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

A brief stint on the floor was marred by defensive miscommunications that allowed easy backdoor cuts. While his shot selection improved significantly from recent outings, his inability to navigate screens proved costly. The opponent actively targeted him during his rotation, driving his overall rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

Relegated to a minor role, he never found the offensive rhythm that defined his recent scoring tears. He competed hard on the defensive end to keep his impact near neutral, but the lack of touches neutralized his primary value. A couple of forced jumpers in traffic highlighted his desperation to make a mark in limited time.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Maximized a tiny window of playing time by aggressively attacking gaps and generating trips to the foul line. His defensive positioning was flawless during this brief stretch, completely shutting down his primary assignment. It was a textbook example of a deep reserve staying ready and executing perfectly.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0