Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CHA lead BOS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
BOS 2P — 3P —
CHA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 166 attempts

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Tatum Hard 12/23 +7.3
Pritchard Hard 10/18 +4.9
Queta 8/13 +2.3
Scheierman Hard 4/11 +0.6
Walsh Hard 1/7 -5.1
Hauser Hard 2/4 +2.4
Harper Jr. 3/3 +3.4
González Hard 1/2 +1.0
Garza Open 1/1 +0.8
Shulga Hard 0/1 -0.9

CHA CHA Shot-making Δ

Ball Hard 7/19 -2.0
Miller Hard 5/13 +0.2
Knueppel Hard 5/13 -2.1
White Hard 4/11 -1.4
Bridges 5/9 +1.5
James Hard 4/8 +2.7
McNeeley Hard 2/3 +2.2
Diabaté Open 2/2 +1.7
Mann Hard 1/2 +0.3
Kalkbrenner Open 1/1 +0.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BOS
CHA
42/83 Field Goals 36/83
50.6% Field Goal % 43.4%
14/34 3-Pointers 12/43
41.2% 3-Point % 27.9%
16/22 Free Throws 15/19
72.7% Free Throw % 78.9%
61.5% True Shooting % 54.2%
50 Total Rebounds 49
8 Offensive 10
31 Defensive 27
23 Assists 19
3.29 Assist/TO Ratio 1.58
5 Turnovers 11
6 Steals 2
3 Blocks 1
18 Fouls 17
52 Points in Paint 40
9 Fast Break Pts 5
11 Points off TOs 7
9 Second Chance Pts 6
27 Bench Points 36
20 Largest Lead 3
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jayson Tatum
32 PTS · 5 REB · 8 AST · 30.8 MIN
+25.83
2
Payton Pritchard
28 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 37.2 MIN
+23.28
3
Neemias Queta
17 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 28.8 MIN
+17.98
4
Liam McNeeley
10 PTS · 6 REB · 0 AST · 10.9 MIN
+11.19
5
Ron Harper Jr.
7 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 14.3 MIN
+10.1
6
Brandon Miller
13 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 31.8 MIN
+9.45
7
Miles Bridges
14 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 29.1 MIN
+8.17
8
Sion James
11 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 22.4 MIN
+7.94
9
Hugo González
3 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 13.0 MIN
+6.38
10
Moussa Diabaté
4 PTS · 6 REB · 0 AST · 24.8 MIN
+4.98
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:13 BOS shot clock Team TURNOVER 114–99
Q4 0:33 J. Tonje STEAL (1 STL) 114–99
Q4 0:33 J. Green bad pass TURNOVER (1 TO) 114–99
Q4 0:37 J. Green STEAL (1 STL) 114–99
Q4 0:37 A. Williams bad pass TURNOVER (1 TO) 114–99
Q4 0:49 L. McNeeley Free Throw 2 of 2 (10 PTS) 114–99
Q4 0:49 L. McNeeley Free Throw 1 of 2 (9 PTS) 114–98
Q4 0:49 M. Shulga personal FOUL (1 PF) (McNeeley 2 FT) 114–97
Q4 0:49 L. McNeeley REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 114–97
Q4 0:50 MISS C. Bassey Free Throw 2 of 2 114–97
Q4 0:50 C. Bassey Free Throw 1 of 2 (1 PTS) 114–97
Q4 0:50 J. Green shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Bassey 2 FT) 113–97
Q4 0:50 C. Bassey REBOUND (Off:1 Def:0) 113–97
Q4 0:52 MISS H. González 6' running pullup Shot 113–97
Q4 0:56 H. González STEAL (1 STL) 113–97

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

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 31.9m
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.9

Brick after brick from beyond the arc severely damaged his overall impact, completely offsetting his solid hustle metric. His inability to punish defenders for going under screens stalled the half-court offense for extended stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 45.4%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -25.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 31.9m
13
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.6

Settling for heavily contested perimeter isolation plays cratered his efficiency and drove a negative net rating. A glaring lack of off-ball movement made him too easy to guard during crucial second-half possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -28.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Miles Bridges 29.1m
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.8

Costly defensive lapses in transition ultimately dragged a highly efficient shooting performance into the red. While he bullied smaller matchups in the post, his slow recovery times allowed too many easy counter-attacks.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -43.9
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S LaMelo Ball 26.4m
19
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.6

Errant shot selection from deep sabotaged his offensive value, as he repeatedly forced early-clock triples against set defenses. This high-volume inefficiency negated the positive momentum he generated through active passing lane deflections.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 3/12 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.8%
USG% 38.1%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Moussa Diabaté 24.8m
4
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Failing to anchor the paint defensively resulted in a flat defensive rating and a steep negative overall score. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in drop coverage, exposing his lack of rim deterrence.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 5.5%
Net Rtg -33.2
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Sion James 22.4m
11
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.0

While his perimeter stroke was dialed in, a lack of secondary effort plays kept his net impact slightly submerged. Getting caught ball-watching on several defensive rebounding sequences surrendered costly second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Coby White 19.8m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Forcing drives into heavy traffic resulted in low-quality attempts that tanked his overall rating. His inability to find a rhythm against aggressive point-of-attack pressure stalled the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg +36.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Josh Green 18.0m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.8

Complete invisibility on the offensive end led to a disastrous total impact rating. Passing up open corner looks crippled the team's floor spacing, allowing defenders to freely pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

Relentless screen-setting and physical box-outs produced a stellar hustle score that defined his highly effective shift. He embraced the dirty work inside, creating vital separation for the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.3%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.8

Lethal offensive execution in a short burst skyrocketed his impact score to an elite level. Punishing defensive miscommunications with decisive backdoor cuts perfectly showcased his high basketball IQ.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 88.7%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -31.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Scoring +8.9
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +7.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.3

Clanking his only offensive look dragged down his rating despite showing solid defensive fundamentals. A strong vertical contest at the rim highlighted his brief but physically demanding shift.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

Floating aimlessly through a brief rotation stint resulted in empty metrics across the board. Providing zero weak-side help defense ensured his net impact stayed firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Mann 3.9m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

A brief cameo yielded a slightly negative score due to a complete absence of defensive resistance. He failed to navigate through off-ball screens, allowing his assignment free reign on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
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
BOS Boston Celtics
28
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+24.4

Relentless downhill attacking broke down the opposing defense, driving a stellar box score contribution. His decisive shot creation during non-star minutes kept the offense humming and secured a highly positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Scoring +22.5
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +6.3
Hustle +5.7
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jordan Walsh 33.7m
3
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Despite a stellar defensive rating driven by relentless perimeter containment, his overall impact slipped into the red due to brutal shot selection. Clanking every perimeter attempt neutralized the value of his high-energy closeouts.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.2%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +7.9
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sam Hauser 33.6m
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Extreme passivity on the offensive end resulted in a severe negative net impact despite highly efficient shooting. Failing to hunt his shot against favorable defensive rotations severely limited the floor-spacing value he typically provides.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +4.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jayson Tatum 30.8m
32
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+26.6

An overwhelming offensive barrage fueled a massive positive box score metric, completely dictating the tempo of the game. His ability to consistently punish mismatches on the perimeter masked a relatively quiet night in the hustle and defensive categories.

Shooting
FG 12/23 (52.2%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 37.9%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring +23.6
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +8.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Neemias Queta 28.8m
17
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+17.5

Elite rim-running and continuous interior activity generated a robust hustle score to anchor his highly positive night. He established deep post position early and often, converting high-percentage looks that heavily inflated his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +25.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Scoring +12.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +9.2
Defense -0.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.2

A heavy diet of contested perimeter jumpers dragged his net impact into negative territory despite a notable scoring surge. While the volume was there, the poor shot quality surrendered too many long rebounds that ignited opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.5

Flawless execution in a short stint maximized his value, yielding an impressive total impact. Capitalizing immediately on backdoor cuts showcased a sharp offensive awareness that perfectly complemented the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +40.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Luka Garza 13.4m
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.3

A complete lack of offensive aggression tanked his overall score, as he failed to leverage his size in the paint. Being effectively neutralized by frontcourt double-teams rendered him a non-factor on a night where he usually dominates the glass.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Staying strictly within his role allowed him to post a modest but positive net rating. He avoided costly mistakes and maintained proper spacing during his rotation, providing stable filler minutes without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -48.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.2

Brief garbage-time minutes offered virtually no opportunity to influence the game positively. He was caught out of position on a late defensive rotation, which slightly dinged his otherwise negligible metrics.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Max Shulga 2.4m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.0

Forcing an ill-advised jumper during a fleeting appearance resulted in a slightly negative net score. However, a quick closeout on the perimeter salvaged a decent defensive rating for the short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
John Tonje 1.1m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Active hands and immediate hustle plays generated an outsized impact score in a microscopic window of playing time. Securing a crucial loose ball right after checking in highlighted his readiness off the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Drawing a quick foul to get to the line was the sole driver of his positive rating in just over a minute of action. He executed his screening duties effectively during a single late-game possession.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0