Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
GSW lead BOS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
BOS 2P — 3P —
GSW 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 191 attempts

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Pritchard Hard 10/18 +8.5
Brown 10/18 -0.1
White Hard 4/13 -5.1
Hauser Hard 6/10 +5.8
Vučević 4/9 -1.1
Scheierman Hard 3/9 -2.2
Queta Open 4/6 -0.4
González 3/5 +1.6
Harper Jr. Hard 2/4 +1.6
Walsh 2/2 +2.5

GSW GSW Shot-making Δ

Santos Hard 6/14 +2.1
Melton Hard 7/13 +3.2
Richard Hard 6/11 +3.1
Horford Hard 2/10 -4.7
Porziņģis Hard 5/9 +4.0
Moody Hard 4/9 +1.5
Payton II 6/8 +4.4
Podziemski Hard 5/8 +3.8
Spencer Hard 2/7 -1.3
Green Hard 0/7 -6.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BOS
GSW
49/95 Field Goals 43/96
51.6% Field Goal % 44.8%
17/40 3-Pointers 20/55
42.5% 3-Point % 36.4%
6/7 Free Throws 4/8
85.7% Free Throw % 50.0%
61.7% True Shooting % 55.3%
59 Total Rebounds 47
13 Offensive 11
41 Defensive 29
36 Assists 30
2.77 Assist/TO Ratio 3.33
13 Turnovers 8
7 Steals 8
6 Blocks 4
6 Fouls 11
58 Points in Paint 44
10 Fast Break Pts 13
13 Points off TOs 25
12 Second Chance Pts 10
56 Bench Points 59
34 Largest Lead 4
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jaylen Brown
23 PTS · 15 REB · 13 AST · 37.1 MIN
+21.31
2
Payton Pritchard
26 PTS · 6 REB · 7 AST · 32.6 MIN
+19.08
3
Gary Payton II
14 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 18.5 MIN
+18.38
4
Will Richard
17 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 24.4 MIN
+18.1
5
Brandin Podziemski
11 PTS · 7 REB · 6 AST · 27.2 MIN
+17.73
6
Gui Santos
17 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 32.0 MIN
+17.66
7
Sam Hauser
16 PTS · 3 REB · 5 AST · 27.9 MIN
+16.39
8
Neemias Queta
9 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 18.1 MIN
+14.3
9
Nikola Vučević
9 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 27.7 MIN
+11.83
10
Derrick White
10 PTS · 5 REB · 8 AST · 39.0 MIN
+10.94
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:18 B. Podziemski driving Layup (11 PTS) 121–110
Q4 0:26 A. Horford REBOUND (Off:1 Def:7) 121–108
Q4 0:29 MISS P. Pritchard 26' step back 3PT 121–108
Q4 0:53 J. Brown REBOUND (Off:0 Def:15) 121–108
Q4 0:53 D. White BLOCK (4 BLK) 121–108
Q4 0:53 MISS D. Melton 26' pullup 3PT - blocked 121–108
Q4 0:59 N. Queta alley-oop DUNK (9 PTS) (J. Brown 13 AST) 121–108
Q4 1:14 N. Queta REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 119–108
Q4 1:15 MISS G. Santos 6' driving bank Shot 119–108
Q4 1:24 TEAM defensive REBOUND 119–108
Q4 1:26 MISS S. Hauser 19' Jump Shot 119–108
Q4 1:36 D. Melton Free Throw 3 of 3 (18 PTS) 119–108
Q4 1:36 TEAM offensive REBOUND 119–107
Q4 1:36 MISS D. Melton Free Throw 2 of 3 119–107
Q4 1:36 D. Melton Free Throw 1 of 3 (17 PTS) 119–107

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

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Gui Santos 32.0m
17
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.5

Relentless motor on 50/50 balls and the offensive glass completely shifted the momentum during the middle quarters. His willingness to take and make contested corner threes against hard closeouts anchored a highly productive shift.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Scoring +10.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +6.7
Defense +1.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Pat Spencer 26.7m
5
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.2

Excellent point-of-attack defense and disruptive hands generated consistent stops on the perimeter. Unfortunately, poor finishing at the rim and forced passes in traffic dragged his net rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Found great success attacking closeouts and finishing with floaters in the non-restricted area. However, his overall value was negated by getting caught on multiple off-ball screens, yielding wide-open looks to his primary matchup.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Scoring +12.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Moses Moody 22.7m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Struggled to find a rhythm against physical wing defenders who denied him clean catch-and-shoot opportunities. Defensive lapses on back-door cuts heavily penalized his overall rating despite decent shooting efficiency from the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -52.4
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Draymond Green 18.6m
0
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-19.3

Offensive impact cratered completely due to settling for low-percentage perimeter heaves instead of attacking the rim. The total lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to aggressively sag off and clog the paint, stalling the entire offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 0/7 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -71.6
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring -5.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Al Horford 27.5m
5
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.3

An inability to connect on pick-and-pop attempts severely cramped the team's half-court spacing and stalled offensive momentum. Opposing guards relentlessly targeted his drop coverage in the pick-and-roll, exposing his declining lateral mobility.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Scoring -1.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +10.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.1

Operated as a brilliant secondary connector, consistently making the extra pass to beat defensive rotations. His sharp positional awareness on the defensive glass prevented second-chance opportunities, cementing a solid two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Scoring +8.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +6.0
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Will Richard 24.4m
17
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.6

Injected sudden life into the offense by aggressively hunting his shot in early transition. His decisive trigger from the wings punished a defense that was slow to match up, driving a highly positive stint.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +13.3
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.4

Wreaked absolute havoc in the passing lanes, turning defensive deflections directly into transition run-outs. His elite cutting along the baseline perfectly exploited an opponent that was caught ball-watching.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +40.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Scoring +12.4
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

Commanded heavy defensive attention in the post, which opened up weak-side shooting pockets for teammates. However, his impact was neutralized by a failure to establish deep position, resulting in tough, contested turnaround jumpers.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 39.0m
10
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-0.7

An uncharacteristically cold shooting night from beyond the arc completely tanked his offensive value and dragged his net rating into the red. However, his elite screen navigation and relentless ball pressure at the point of attack kept his defensive metrics sparkling despite the scoring woes.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.0%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +6.3
Defense +4.3
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 3
S Jaylen Brown 37.1m
23
pts
15
reb
13
ast
Impact
+8.5

Heavy offensive usage yielded diminishing returns due to forced drives into traffic that resulted in empty possessions and transition opportunities for the opponent. Despite strong rebounding positioning, his overall impact was severely muted by poor perimeter shot selection and forcing the issue against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Scoring +17.5
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +4.5
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Sam Hauser 27.9m
16
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.8

Elite floor spacing from the corners opened up driving lanes for the primary creators. His quick trigger against closeouts punished defensive lapses, though his overall impact was slightly capped by average point-of-attack resistance.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +35.6
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +13.3
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

Perimeter shot selection severely hampered his overall effectiveness, as forced looks early in the shot clock led to long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, compounding the offensive inefficiency with costly defensive breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Neemias Queta 18.1m
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.2

Dominated the interior through sheer verticality and highly disciplined rim protection. His ability to consistently finish through contact in the restricted area anchored a highly efficient stint on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +7.6
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
26
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+14.0

Deep drop coverage was repeatedly punished by his extended pull-up range in pick-and-roll situations. While his scoring gravity was immense, defensive limitations against bigger switches ate into his overall net positive.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Scoring +20.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +7.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -7.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
9
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.6

Masterful positional rebounding and sturdy post defense neutralized the opponent's interior attack. Offensively, he settled for too many contested mid-range jumpers instead of leveraging his size in the paint, limiting his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +31.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.4
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Showed excellent spatial awareness in transition, consistently filling the correct lanes to generate high-percentage looks. His active hands in the passing lanes disrupted opposing sets, translating directly to a solid two-way rating.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

Capitalized on limited minutes by strictly adhering to a catch-and-shoot role from the weak side. Kept the ball moving against zone looks, providing just enough spacing to keep the second unit offense afloat.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.3

Brought immediate energy as a cutter, finding soft spots in the baseline defense for easy finishes at the rim. Unfortunately, over-aggressive closeouts on the perimeter led to foul trouble that cut his rotation short and negated his impact.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -58.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Luka Garza 2.2m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

Made an immediate impact in a brief cameo by stretching the floor as a trailing big. His quick release on a top-of-the-key triple forced the opposing center to abandon the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -180.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0