Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
BOS lead WAS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
WAS 2P — 3P —
BOS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 177 attempts

WAS WAS Shot-making Δ

Johnson Hard 3/13 -5.7
Watkins 6/11 +1.5
Young Hard 5/10 +1.3
Coulibaly 4/10 -0.8
Vukcevic Hard 7/9 +11.5
Sarr Hard 1/9 -4.9
Champagnie 3/6 -0.8
Riley 2/6 -1.7
Hardy 5/5 +6.7
Carrington Hard 1/2 +0.4

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Tatum 8/19 -3.2
Queta Open 11/13 +6.7
Brown Hard 6/13 -0.8
Hauser Hard 4/11 +1.5
White Hard 3/11 -1.9
Pritchard 2/11 -8.0
Scheierman Hard 1/8 -4.8
Garza 5/6 +5.2
Williams Open 1/1 +0.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
WAS
BOS
37/84 Field Goals 41/93
44.0% Field Goal % 44.1%
15/39 3-Pointers 12/46
38.5% 3-Point % 26.1%
11/17 Free Throws 17/19
64.7% Free Throw % 89.5%
54.7% True Shooting % 54.8%
47 Total Rebounds 62
9 Offensive 19
29 Defensive 36
28 Assists 29
1.87 Assist/TO Ratio 1.93
13 Turnovers 14
9 Steals 8
4 Blocks 4
18 Fouls 20
30 Points in Paint 54
28 Fast Break Pts 9
24 Points off TOs 18
11 Second Chance Pts 17
61 Bench Points 24
1 Largest Lead 30
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Neemias Queta
24 PTS · 10 REB · 3 AST · 31.2 MIN
+30.42
2
Jayson Tatum
20 PTS · 14 REB · 7 AST · 32.2 MIN
+20.56
3
Tristan Vukcevic
22 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 20.3 MIN
+18.64
4
Derrick White
15 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 35.5 MIN
+14.02
5
Jaden Hardy
12 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 15.2 MIN
+13.96
6
Jamir Watkins
15 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 23.5 MIN
+13.81
7
Justin Champagnie
10 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 21.4 MIN
+11.36
8
Bilal Coulibaly
12 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 24.2 MIN
+11.09
9
Jaylen Brown
16 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 30.6 MIN
+10.39
10
Luka Garza
15 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 15.2 MIN
+9.08
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:13 BOS shot clock Team TURNOVER 100–111
Q4 0:37 J. Champagnie running DUNK (10 PTS) (A. Gill 1 AST) 100–111
Q4 0:39 J. Champagnie STEAL (2 STL) 98–111
Q4 0:39 R. Harper Jr. lost ball TURNOVER (1 TO) 98–111
Q4 0:55 J. Champagnie Free Throw 2 of 2 (8 PTS) 98–111
Q4 0:55 J. Champagnie Free Throw 1 of 2 (7 PTS) 97–111
Q4 0:55 R. Harper Jr. shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Champagnie 2 FT) 96–111
Q4 0:55 TEAM offensive REBOUND 96–111
Q4 0:56 MISS J. Watkins 28' 3PT 96–111
Q4 1:03 A. Williams tip DUNK (2 PTS) 96–111
Q4 1:03 A. Williams REBOUND (Off:1 Def:0) 96–109
Q4 1:05 MISS P. Pritchard driving Layup 96–109
Q4 1:22 J. Champagnie Free Throw 1 of 1 (6 PTS) 96–109
Q4 1:22 H. González shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Champagnie 1 FT) 95–109
Q4 1:22 J. Champagnie running Layup (5 PTS) 95–109

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 Derrick White 35.5m
15
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.2

Phenomenal hustle metrics and lockdown perimeter defense completely salvaged what was otherwise a rough shooting performance. He impacted winning entirely through the margins, taking charges, deflecting passes, and keeping offensive possessions alive. This relentless off-ball activity proved that his value extends far beyond his ability to put the ball in the hoop.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +48.2
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +7.6
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jayson Tatum 32.2m
20
pts
14
reb
7
ast
Impact
+14.5

Elite defensive versatility and relentless rebounding masked a highly inefficient perimeter shooting night. He struggled to find his stroke from deep, repeatedly settling for contested isolation jumpers that bailed out the defense. However, his ability to anchor the glass and switch across multiple positions ensured his overall impact remained heavily positive.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.3%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +25.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Scoring +11.9
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 31.2m
24
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+29.2

Absolute dominance around the rim on both ends of the floor resulted in a staggering total impact score. He capitalized on every pick-and-roll opportunity, utilizing his massive frame to seal off defenders and finish with overwhelming efficiency. Adding elite rim protection to this offensive masterclass created an insurmountable advantage in the paint.

Shooting
FG 11/13 (84.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 83.8%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +19.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +21.9
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +12.7
Defense +2.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 24.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Jaylen Brown 30.6m
16
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.6

A frigid night from beyond the arc and a sharp decline from his recent scoring tear pushed his overall rating into the red. He repeatedly forced the issue against set defenses, resulting in clunky possessions and missed perimeter looks that fueled opponent transition opportunities. While his on-ball defense remained solid, the offensive inefficiency was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Scoring +10.6
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Sam Hauser 26.4m
12
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.5

A heavy reliance on contested perimeter looks dragged down his overall efficiency and resulted in a negative total impact. While he generated extra possessions through excellent hustle, his inability to hit shots at his usual clip led to several wasted offensive trips. Opponents successfully ran him off his spots, forcing him into lower-percentage, off-balance attempts.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +56.9
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +6.7
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.1

An uncharacteristically disastrous shooting performance completely derailed his offensive value and sank his overall rating. He failed to punish drop coverages, clanking wide-open perimeter looks that normally serve as the engine for the second unit. Despite surprisingly stout point-of-attack defense, his inability to generate points created a massive offensive void.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 18.2%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring -2.7
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.2

Constant misfires from beyond the arc severely damaged his overall impact during this rotation. He was brought in to space the floor but instead shot his team out of rhythm, missing several clean catch-and-shoot opportunities. While he competed adequately on the defensive end, his primary utility as a floor spacer completely failed to materialize.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 18.8%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Scoring -2.5
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +11.4
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Luka Garza 15.2m
15
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.3

Exceptional touch around the basket and perfect perimeter execution drove a highly productive offensive stint. He continued his streak of blistering efficiency by exploiting mismatches in the post and popping out for uncontested trail threes. This scoring punch easily outweighed his minor struggles with lateral quickness on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.6%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.4

A complete lack of offensive involvement and poor defensive positioning resulted in a highly detrimental short shift. He floated through his minutes without attempting a single shot, allowing his defender to freely roam and double-team other threats. Compounding the issue, he was consistently late on closeouts, bleeding points on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -88.2
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

Made the most of a fleeting garbage-time appearance by immediately converting his only look at the rim. He established deep position quickly, showcasing decisive finishing in his limited window. It was a brief but fundamentally sound sequence that kept his impact marginally positive.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -125.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Max Shulga 1.6m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Barely saw the floor during a brief garbage-time cameo, leaving virtually no footprint on the game. He simply cycled through offensive sets without registering any meaningful actions. The slightly negative score reflects minor spacing issues during his handful of possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -125.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.9

A disastrously brief appearance was marred by immediate defensive lapses that tanked his rating in under two minutes. He was instantly targeted upon entering the game, giving up easy penetration that compromised the defensive shell. This inability to hold his ground resulted in a disproportionately negative score for such a short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -125.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
WAS Washington Wizards
S Will Riley 29.3m
5
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.4

A massive drop-off from his recent scoring tear severely dragged down his overall value. He struggled to find his spots against physical coverage, leading to a passive offensive approach that stalled half-court momentum. Even with decent hustle metrics, the lack of his usual scoring gravity allowed the defense to cheat toward other assignments.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -29.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +5.4
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Trae Young 24.5m
11
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.4

High-level hustle plays and efficient interior navigation kept his impact slightly positive despite a complete lack of perimeter spacing. He compensated for a missing outside stroke by aggressively attacking closeouts and generating secondary offensive opportunities. His willingness to fight through screens on defense also provided a rare positive bump on that end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -42.0
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tre Johnson 24.5m
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.6

Reckless shot selection and poor defensive rotations compounded to produce a disastrous overall rating. He repeatedly forced contested looks early in the shot clock, completely short-circuiting the team's offensive rhythm. A lack of defensive awareness meant he was giving up just as much on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 26.9%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -42.0
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bilal Coulibaly 24.2m
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.6

Strong defensive metrics kept his overall impact in the black despite an uneven shooting night. His length on the perimeter consistently disrupted opponent sets and created a reliable defensive floor. While his offensive output merely matched his recent baseline, this two-way stability anchored the wing rotation.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -28.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +4.1
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Alex Sarr 22.1m
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.9

Brutal shot selection from the perimeter completely tanked his offensive value and overall rating. He settled for contested jumpers instead of attacking the paint, resulting in empty possessions that fueled transition opportunities the other way. However, elite rim protection and high-level hustle prevented his total impact from falling even further.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.2%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -50.5
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Scoring -2.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
15
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.2

Relentless energy on the margins and a massive surge in offensive aggression fueled a breakout performance. He consistently beat his man off the dribble, collapsing the defense and finishing through contact at a rate far above his recent baseline. This two-way intensity completely overwhelmed his individual matchups during the middle quarters.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Scoring +9.5
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +5.7
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
-8.1

Extreme offensive passivity severely limited his overall effectiveness, as he took a massive step back from his usual scoring aggression. By refusing to look for his own shot, he allowed defenders to drop back and clog passing lanes. While his facilitating kept the ball moving, the lack of personal scoring gravity ultimately stalled out multiple possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.0%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.3

Excellent defensive positioning and highly efficient shot selection defined a rock-solid rotational shift. He extended his streak of high-percentage shooting by strictly taking what the defense gave him rather than forcing contested looks. This steady, mistake-free approach provided a crucial stabilizing presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
22
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.4

Scorching perimeter efficiency completely warped the opposing defense and drove a massive overall impact score. He punished drop coverage relentlessly, stepping into trailing threes with perfect rhythm to break the game open. Combined with surprisingly stout interior defense, this was a ceiling-raising performance that swung the momentum entirely.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 6/7 (85.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 111.3%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +46.7
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Scoring +20.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +6.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -6.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jaden Hardy 15.2m
12
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.0

Flawless shot selection and perfect execution yielded a highly potent offensive spark off the bench. He took exactly what the defense conceded, punishing late rotations with decisive drives and perfectly timed perimeter daggers. This supreme efficiency maximized his value despite playing relatively limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 120.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +52.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring +12.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.5

A complete failure to generate offense during a brief stint dragged his overall rating into the negative. He struggled to find separation against longer defenders, resulting in empty trips that killed the team's pace. Only a few high-effort loose ball recoveries kept his total impact from cratering entirely.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -58.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Scoring -1.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.8

An abrupt halt to his recent streak of hyper-efficient scoring rendered him largely invisible during this short stint. He failed to establish deep post position, allowing the defense to easily neutralize his typical interior gravity. Without his usual offensive output, he offered very little resistance or value elsewhere on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -63.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0