Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CLE lead BOS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
BOS 2P — 3P —
CLE 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 170 attempts

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Brown Hard 7/17 -0.1
Tatum Hard 6/16 -2.5
Pritchard Hard 7/12 +6.1
Hauser Hard 5/10 +6.4
White Hard 2/9 -4.7
Scheierman Hard 6/8 +7.8
Queta Open 2/7 -4.2
Garza 2/4 +0.8
González Open 0/1 -1.4

CLE CLE Shot-making Δ

Mobley Open 10/19 -1.2
Mitchell Hard 9/18 +3.5
Harden 6/16 -2.2
Merrill Hard 2/9 -4.5
Tyson Hard 3/8 -0.4
Bryant Hard 1/6 -3.4
Wade 3/5 +1.1
Schröder 1/4 -2.0
Ellis Hard 0/1 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BOS
CLE
37/84 Field Goals 35/86
44.0% Field Goal % 40.7%
15/38 3-Pointers 13/45
39.5% 3-Point % 28.9%
20/22 Free Throws 15/21
90.9% Free Throw % 71.4%
58.2% True Shooting % 51.4%
56 Total Rebounds 52
10 Offensive 10
39 Defensive 32
25 Assists 23
2.08 Assist/TO Ratio 2.56
10 Turnovers 7
2 Steals 4
0 Blocks 6
20 Fouls 19
32 Points in Paint 38
2 Fast Break Pts 18
13 Points off TOs 8
11 Second Chance Pts 10
41 Bench Points 13
26 Largest Lead 8
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Donovan Mitchell
30 PTS · 7 REB · 5 AST · 33.5 MIN
+28.35
2
Evan Mobley
24 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 31.1 MIN
+22.1
3
Baylor Scheierman
16 PTS · 10 REB · 0 AST · 25.8 MIN
+20.73
4
Payton Pritchard
18 PTS · 3 REB · 7 AST · 34.8 MIN
+15.98
5
James Harden
19 PTS · 4 REB · 10 AST · 38.3 MIN
+14.87
6
Jaylen Brown
23 PTS · 9 REB · 8 AST · 37.8 MIN
+12.02
7
Sam Hauser
15 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 24.4 MIN
+10.84
8
Jayson Tatum
20 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 27.0 MIN
+10.69
9
Dean Wade
7 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 20.6 MIN
+4.7
10
Jaylon Tyson
8 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 25.3 MIN
+4.5
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:13 N. Queta REBOUND (Off:0 Def:11) 109–98
Q4 0:15 MISS S. Merrill pullup 3PT 109–98
Q4 0:19 TEAM offensive REBOUND 109–98
Q4 0:20 MISS D. Mitchell 24' 3PT 109–98
Q4 0:26 J. Tyson REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 109–98
Q4 0:27 MISS E. Mobley 3PT 109–98
Q4 0:36 P. Pritchard Free Throw 2 of 2 (18 PTS) 109–98
Q4 0:36 P. Pritchard Free Throw 1 of 2 (17 PTS) 108–98
Q4 0:36 J. Tyson take personal FOUL (2 PF) (Pritchard 2 FT) 107–98
Q4 0:37 S. Merrill personal FOUL (5 PF) 107–98
Q4 0:37 J. Brown REBOUND (Off:3 Def:6) 107–98
Q4 0:37 MISS D. Mitchell 36' running pullup 3PT 107–98
Q4 0:44 D. Mitchell REBOUND (Off:0 Def:7) 107–98
Q4 0:47 MISS J. Brown 21' step back Shot 107–98
Q4 1:09 N. Queta REBOUND (Off:0 Def:10) 107–98

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

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S James Harden 38.3m
19
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
+14.6

Masterful pick-and-roll orchestration generated high-quality looks for the bigs, but his own isolation inefficiency limited the ceiling of his impact. He struggled to create separation against switching defenses, resulting in forced, late-clock jumpers that bailed out the opponent. Surprisingly active hands in the passing lanes (+2.4 Def) kept his overall contribution slightly positive.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +3.0
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
30
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+29.0

Elite point-of-attack defense (+6.7 Def) sparked transition opportunities, transforming defensive stops into immediate offense. He relentlessly attacked the paint, drawing defensive attention that opened up the floor for his teammates. This masterclass in two-way aggression completely overwhelmed the opposing backcourt and defined the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 65.7%
USG% 31.9%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Scoring +22.6
Creation +3.4
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Evan Mobley 31.1m
24
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+19.0

Utterly dominated the interior with elite rim protection (+6.2 Def) while simultaneously expanding his offensive repertoire. He confidently stepped into perimeter shots and finished through contact, punishing smaller defenders in the post. His two-way versatility dictated the terms of engagement for both teams and drove a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +16.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +9.2
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Sam Merrill 29.1m
5
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.8

A disastrous shooting slump from his primary spots completely neutralized his value as a movement shooter. Opponents ignored him off the ball, which clogged driving lanes and stalled the half-court offense. Without his typical spacing gravity, his minutes were a massive net negative despite decent secondary playmaking.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +4.4
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Dean Wade 20.6m
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

High-level rotational defense and constant effort plays (+4.3 Hustle) anchored his highly effective stint. He didn't demand the ball, instead finding value through timely cuts and solid positional rebounding against larger matchups. His low-maintenance, mistake-free execution provided essential glue for the frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense -4.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaylon Tyson 25.3m
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Offensive hesitation and a failure to convert open spot-up opportunities allowed the defense to cheat off him. While he crashed the glass adequately, his lack of burst off the dribble resulted in stagnant, late-clock possessions. He struggled to find a rhythm within the flow of the offense, dragging down the lineup's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -37.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +4.7
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Keon Ellis 24.1m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.2

An absolute terror in terms of pure energy, generating a massive +9.1 hustle rating through deflections and loose ball recoveries. His total offensive invisibility meant the team essentially played 4-on-5 on that end, severely cramping the floor. The sheer volume of his disruptive defensive plays just barely outweighed his offensive zeroes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 1.9%
Net Rtg -27.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.7

Pounded the air out of the ball without generating any meaningful penetration, stalling the second unit's offense. His inability to hit shots or bend the defense allowed opponents to stay home on shooters. A severe lack of offensive creation and poor finishing at the rim resulted in a highly detrimental performance.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Scoring -0.1
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.5

Forcing outside shots rather than playing to his interior strengths completely derailed his offensive rhythm. He failed to establish deep post position and was easily moved off his spots by more physical bigs. The resulting empty possessions and poor shot selection heavily penalized his short stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Scoring -0.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.6

Barely registered a pulse during garbage time minutes, failing to attempt a shot or initiate any offense. He was a passive participant who merely moved the ball around the perimeter without probing the defense. His brief appearance was defined by a complete lack of aggression.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -51.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 37.8m
23
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
+11.5

Heavy offensive creation yielded a flat net rating due to a high volume of missed mid-range attempts that bailed out the defense. He ate up possessions without generating a distinct advantage, struggling to find a rhythm against set half-court coverages. While his playmaking reads were sharp, a lack of disruptive defensive plays kept his overall impact perfectly neutral.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +23.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Scoring +15.7
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +11.4
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -8.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Neemias Queta 35.9m
4
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.4

A stark drop-off in interior finishing severely penalized his offensive value after a highly efficient stretch of games. While his rim protection and rebounding were formidable (+4.2 Def), his inability to convert high-percentage looks allowed the defense to sag into the paint. Those empty offensive possessions ultimately cratered his net impact despite his physical presence.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 9.0%
Net Rtg +19.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +3.3
Defense -5.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Derrick White 35.6m
6
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.5

Exceptional hustle (+5.8) and crisp defensive rotations couldn't salvage an abysmal shooting night from beyond the arc. He routinely generated extra possessions through sheer effort, but his inability to punish closeouts stalled the half-court offense. The resulting lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to pack the paint, dragging his total impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.4%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +6.0
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jayson Tatum 27.0m
20
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.6

Impact was muted by settling for contested perimeter jumpers rather than pressuring the rim. A heavy volume of missed deep looks allowed the defense to leak out in transition, neutralizing his overall offensive footprint. His defensive engagement was merely passable, leaving him without a defining stretch to swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 34.5%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Scoring +12.4
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Sam Hauser 24.4m
15
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.2

Elite spacing gravity defined his minutes as he relentlessly punished defensive rotations with lethal catch-and-shoot execution. Opponents were forced to stay glued to him on the perimeter, which opened up driving lanes for the primary creators. Strong positional awareness on the other end (+2.4 Def) proved he can survive defensively when targeted in switches.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+11.5

Relentless point-of-attack penetration and decisive decision-making drove a highly efficient offensive showing. He constantly broke down the defensive shell, balancing his own scoring with sharp distribution to keep the offense humming. Feisty on-ball pressure (+2.1 Def) ensured he wasn't a liability on the other end, cementing a strong positive impact.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Scoring +14.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+17.5

An absolute eruption in shooting efficiency completely warped the opposing defensive scheme and fueled a massive positive swing. He dominated the glass from the wing and provided surprisingly stout perimeter resistance (+4.8 Def) to complement his outside barrage. This two-way breakout performance was the defining catalyst for the second unit's dominance.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Scoring +14.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +6.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 11.7m
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.3

Defensive mobility issues (-1.3 Def) were repeatedly exploited in pick-and-roll coverage, bleeding points during his brief stint. He capitalized on his few offensive touches with good touch, but failed to secure the defensive glass against more athletic bigs. The structural defensive compromises required to keep him on the floor outweighed his scoring efficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.9

Looked completely overwhelmed by the speed of the game, offering zero offensive threat while getting targeted on the perimeter. His inability to stay in front of his man (-1.2 Def) forced the defense into constant, scrambling rotations. A non-factor on both ends who actively hurt the team's spacing and defensive shell during his short run.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0