Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
DAL lead BOS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
BOS 2P — 3P —
DAL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 185 attempts

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Brown 15/29 +3.1
Pritchard Hard 12/20 +6.6
White Hard 4/13 -4.2
Garza 6/8 +6.4
Hauser Hard 4/8 +2.7
Queta Open 4/6 +0.4
González 1/6 -5.3
Scheierman Hard 1/5 -2.3
Walsh Hard 0/1 -1.1

DAL DAL Shot-making Δ

Flagg 12/24 +1.9
Marshall 4/15 -6.9
Christie Hard 4/13 -3.2
Martin 5/10 -0.7
Gafford Open 4/5 +1.7
Thompson Hard 1/5 -1.8
Hardy Hard 2/4 +1.3
Nembhard Hard 1/4 -0.5
Cisse Open 2/4 -1.6
Powell Open 2/3 +0.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BOS
DAL
47/96 Field Goals 37/89
49.0% Field Goal % 41.6%
13/39 3-Pointers 9/32
33.3% 3-Point % 28.1%
3/5 Free Throws 17/22
60.0% Free Throw % 77.3%
56.0% True Shooting % 50.7%
53 Total Rebounds 56
10 Offensive 13
37 Defensive 36
27 Assists 21
2.70 Assist/TO Ratio 2.33
9 Turnovers 9
7 Steals 4
4 Blocks 4
20 Fouls 11
58 Points in Paint 52
8 Fast Break Pts 10
16 Points off TOs 14
17 Second Chance Pts 13
44 Bench Points 22
23 Largest Lead 3
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Cooper Flagg
36 PTS · 9 REB · 6 AST · 36.7 MIN
+31.18
2
Luka Garza
16 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 20.0 MIN
+23.99
3
Jaylen Brown
33 PTS · 11 REB · 3 AST · 37.4 MIN
+19.97
4
Payton Pritchard
26 PTS · 4 REB · 7 AST · 34.5 MIN
+19.24
5
Daniel Gafford
10 PTS · 12 REB · 1 AST · 24.7 MIN
+14.62
6
Neemias Queta
8 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 28.0 MIN
+8.58
7
Caleb Martin
13 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 29.1 MIN
+8.49
8
Sam Hauser
11 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 26.1 MIN
+8.45
9
Max Christie
10 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 30.4 MIN
+6.71
10
Jaden Hardy
7 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 17.6 MIN
+6.2
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:09 BOS shot clock Team TURNOVER 110–100
Q4 0:30 J. Brown REBOUND (Off:1 Def:10) 110–100
Q4 0:35 MISS D. Powell 3PT 110–100
Q4 0:42 M. Kelly REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 110–100
Q4 0:43 MISS J. Walsh 3PT 110–100
Q4 1:07 R. Nembhard 27' 3PT pullup (3 PTS) 110–100
Q4 1:14 P. Pritchard 9' turnaround fadeaway Jump Shot (26 PTS) 110–97
Q4 1:31 D. Powell running Layup (4 PTS) (M. Kelly 1 AST) 108–97
Q4 1:36 M. Kelly REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 108–95
Q4 1:38 MISS J. Brown 28' running pullup 3PT 108–95
Q4 1:44 N. Queta REBOUND (Off:0 Def:8) 108–95
Q4 1:48 MISS M. Kelly 25' 3PT 108–95
Q4 2:02 J. Hardy STEAL (1 STL) 108–95
Q4 2:02 N. Queta bad pass TURNOVER (1 TO) 108–95
Q4 2:18 J. Hardy 9' driving floating Jump Shot (7 PTS) 108–95

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

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 36.7m
36
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+32.4

A relentless barrage of high-quality shot creation anchored an elite offensive rating, continuing his recent tear as a primary initiator. He compounded the damage by blowing up pick-and-roll actions on the other end, cementing a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 62.4%
USG% 35.3%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Scoring +27.4
Creation +3.8
Shot Making +7.0
Hustle +4.6
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Naji Marshall 31.4m
9
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.7

An abysmal shooting night from all three levels completely derailed the offense and resulted in a disastrous overall rating. Forcing the issue against set defenses broke the team's rhythm, overshadowing his otherwise passable weak-side rotations.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +4.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Max Christie 30.4m
10
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.6

Chucking up a high volume of contested threes severely damaged offensive flow and cratered his net score. While he chased shooters adequately on the perimeter, the sheer number of empty possessions he generated proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.5%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Caleb Martin 29.1m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.7

Despite converting his looks at an efficient clip, a complete lack of defensive resistance dragged his overall impact deeply into the red. Opponents consistently targeted him in isolation, erasing any value his offensive spacing provided.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Daniel Gafford 24.7m
10
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.4

Suffocating rim protection and elite rotational awareness fueled an incredibly high defensive rating. By sealing off the paint and finishing his lob opportunities cleanly, he dictated the physical terms of the matchup whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +14.3
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.0

A complete lack of off-ball movement and zero hustle plays rendered him an active liability, plummeting his overall rating. Failing to punish closeouts or generate gravity on the perimeter allowed the defense to completely ignore his side of the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -39.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaden Hardy 17.6m
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

A sharp reduction in usage from his recent scoring tear resulted in a relatively muted, slightly negative impact. He struggled to find an offensive rhythm off the bench, though active hands in passing lanes kept the damage minimal.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Moussa Cisse 14.9m
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Operating strictly as a vertical spacer provided a minor positive bump during his short stint. He avoided costly mistakes and executed his drop coverage assignments, yielding a perfectly acceptable baseline performance.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Miles Kelly 12.1m
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.5

Blanking on his perimeter looks and offering zero resistance at the point of attack culminated in a disastrous net score. He was consistently hunted in mismatch situations, bleeding points during a highly ineffective rotation stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.6

Failing to organize the second unit effectively led to stagnant possessions and a steep drop in his net rating. His inability to turn the corner on pick-and-rolls allowed the defense to comfortably switch and smother the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -42.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Setting bone-crushing screens and executing hard rolls to the rim generated a highly efficient positive impact in limited minutes. His energetic closeouts and positional discipline fortified the interior defense exactly when the second unit needed stability.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 38.5m
11
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-5.7

Clanking a barrage of perimeter looks severely damaged his offensive value and drove his total impact into the red. He fought hard to compensate by generating deflections and navigating screens, yet the sheer volume of wasted possessions outweighed his elite hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 30.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jaylen Brown 37.4m
33
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+28.5

Relentless rim pressure anchored a massive offensive rating, extending his recent dominant scoring pattern. While his sheer volume drove the bulk of his positive impact, solid defensive rotations kept his overall net score firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 15/29 (51.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.2%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Scoring +23.0
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +7.9
Hustle +14.0
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.1

A sharp drop in offensive rhythm cratered his net score, as empty possessions piled up on the perimeter. Surprisingly stout defensive rotations partially masked the damage, but his inability to punish closeouts ultimately dragged down his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +27.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Scoring -0.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +7.9
Defense +2.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Neemias Queta 28.0m
8
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.0

Interior efficiency and strong rim protection drove a positive defensive rating, continuing his streak of highly effective paint finishes. His low-usage role limited his overall ceiling, but his ability to anchor the drop coverage kept his net impact above water.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +21.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense -2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Sam Hauser 26.1m
11
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.4

Perimeter floor spacing provided a steady baseline, but his overall impact zeroed out due to a lack of disruptive plays on the other end. He settled into a reliable catch-and-shoot pattern that kept the offense flowing without moving the needle defensively.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
26
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+14.1

Slicing through the defense for high-percentage interior looks generated a massive box score boost, offsetting a cold night from deep. His overall impact remained solidly positive, though a lack of defensive resistance at the point of attack prevented a truly elite rating.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +20.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +7.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Luka Garza 20.0m
16
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+17.3

Flawless execution from beyond the arc fueled a staggering offensive surge that completely overwhelmed the opposing second unit. This explosive scoring burst was paired with high-motor closeouts, resulting in a dominant two-way performance in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +14.6
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense +4.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

Forcing contested perimeter jumpers tanked his offensive value and dragged his overall rating into the negative. He managed to salvage some utility by aggressively crashing the glass, but erratic shot selection remained the defining flaw of his shift.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 15.5%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +35.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Scoring -2.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +4.7
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 10.5m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.6

Complete offensive invisibility and missed defensive assignments led to a steep negative rating in a brief stint. Failing to register any meaningful weak-side activity made him a pure liability during his time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0