Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
BOS lead CHA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CHA 2P — 3P —
BOS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 175 attempts

CHA CHA Shot-making Δ

Ball Hard 12/24 +10.1
Miller Hard 8/16 +2.0
Knueppel Hard 5/16 -1.8
Bridges Hard 5/9 +2.0
Williams Hard 3/8 +1.7
James Hard 1/7 -5.3
Diabaté Open 1/3 -2.2
Kalkbrenner Open 2/2 +1.2
Green Hard 1/2 +1.0
Connaughton Hard 0/1 -0.9

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Brown 13/29 +0.1
Tatum 8/15 +3.0
Vučević Hard 1/10 -8.2
Pritchard Hard 4/8 +3.5
Queta Open 6/7 +2.2
Hauser Hard 2/7 -1.9
White Hard 4/5 +6.7
Walsh Open 4/4 +3.7
Scheierman Hard 1/2 +0.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHA
BOS
38/88 Field Goals 43/87
43.2% Field Goal % 49.4%
16/49 3-Pointers 17/42
32.7% 3-Point % 40.5%
10/13 Free Throws 10/12
76.9% Free Throw % 83.3%
54.4% True Shooting % 61.2%
46 Total Rebounds 53
14 Offensive 13
26 Defensive 32
24 Assists 22
1.85 Assist/TO Ratio 1.57
12 Turnovers 12
5 Steals 6
3 Blocks 2
16 Fouls 13
32 Points in Paint 44
13 Fast Break Pts 16
22 Points off TOs 22
15 Second Chance Pts 23
18 Bench Points 26
11 Largest Lead 13
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
LaMelo Ball
36 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 36.5 MIN
+22.75
2
Neemias Queta
12 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 25.3 MIN
+17.69
3
Jaylen Brown
35 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 43.2 MIN
+16.98
4
Jayson Tatum
23 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 38.9 MIN
+15.8
5
Derrick White
12 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 36.6 MIN
+14.54
6
Miles Bridges
13 PTS · 12 REB · 4 AST · 31.7 MIN
+13.6
7
Brandon Miller
20 PTS · 0 REB · 2 AST · 33.9 MIN
+12.69
8
Jordan Walsh
9 PTS · 6 REB · 0 AST · 18.2 MIN
+12.11
9
Payton Pritchard
12 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 29.7 MIN
+7.82
10
Ryan Kalkbrenner
4 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 15.1 MIN
+6.76
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 CHA shot clock Team TURNOVER 102–113
Q4 0:24 BOS shot clock Team TURNOVER 102–113
Q4 0:48 R. Kalkbrenner cutting DUNK (4 PTS) (K. Knueppel 5 AST) 102–113
Q4 0:54 P. Pritchard personal FOUL (2 PF) 100–113
Q4 1:04 D. White 25' 3PT step back (12 PTS) 100–113
Q4 1:15 TEAM offensive REBOUND 100–110
Q4 1:15 MISS J. Brown technical Free Throw 1 of 1 100–110
Q4 1:15 M. Bridges technical FOUL (1 Tech) 100–110
Q4 1:15 L. Ball personal FOUL (4 PF) 100–110
Q4 1:29 B. Miller 12' driving Hook (20 PTS) (L. Ball 6 AST) 100–110
Q4 1:36 TEAM offensive REBOUND 98–110
Q4 1:38 MISS M. Diabaté tip Layup 98–110
Q4 1:38 M. Diabaté REBOUND (Off:3 Def:2) 98–110
Q4 1:39 MISS K. Knueppel 25' running 3PT 98–110
Q4 1:46 M. Bridges REBOUND (Off:4 Def:8) 98–110

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 Jaylen Brown 43.2m
35
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.7

Carried an enormous offensive burden but bled efficiency through forced, contested mid-range attempts. His saving grace was a suffocating defensive performance, routinely blowing up passing lanes and locking down the point of attack. The sheer volume of inefficient shots capped his impact, but his relentless two-way motor kept the needle pointing up.

Shooting
FG 13/29 (44.8%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 37.0%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.2m
Scoring +23.4
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +8.0
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -10.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Jayson Tatum 38.9m
23
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.9

Bogged down the offense with isolation-heavy possessions that stalled ball movement against Charlotte's set defense. While he hit several tough, contested jumpers, the lack of rim pressure and secondary playmaking limited the team's ceiling. His tendency to settle for step-backs rather than drawing fouls kept his overall impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.9%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Scoring +17.3
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Derrick White 36.6m
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.2

Played a remarkably clean offensive game, punishing defensive lapses with lethal spot-up precision. However, his impact was neutralized by uncharacteristic struggles navigating off-ball screens, allowing his matchups to find daylight. A perfectly balanced performance where elite shot-making was counteracted by specific defensive assignment breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 120.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 25.3m
12
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.1

Completely dominated the interior with relentless offensive rebounding and violent rim-runs. He punished Charlotte's smaller frontcourt on switches, converting nearly every touch in the paint into high-value looks. This physical mismatch dictated the terms of engagement in the paint and drove a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring +11.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +6.3
Defense -4.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Sam Hauser 16.2m
5
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.1

Cold shooting from the perimeter neutralized his primary weapon and allowed defenders to sag into the driving lanes. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation during the third quarter, conceding costly blow-bys that compromised the defensive shell. Without his typical floor-spacing gravity, his overall utility plummeted into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.4

Surrendered far too much ground defensively, getting relentlessly hunted by bigger guards in the post. Even though his perimeter stroke was pure, the points he generated were immediately given back on the other end through foul costs and blown coverages. The defensive mismatches completely erased his floor-spacing value.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.1

Endured a nightmare shooting performance, short-arming hooks and clanking wide-open trail threes. He managed to salvage some value by anchoring the drop coverage and securing defensive glass, but the offensive black hole was too deep to overcome. The complete lack of touch around the basket killed multiple promising halfcourt sets.

Shooting
FG 1/10 (10.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 10.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Scoring -5.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Jordan Walsh 18.2m
9
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.2

Capitalized on every opportunity with flawless shot selection and explosive cuts to the basket. His length disrupted Charlotte's perimeter flow, generating deflections that ignited the fast break. A textbook example of a role player maximizing their minutes through high-energy defense and opportunistic finishing.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -5.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +5.7
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

Struggled to keep his man in front of him, frequently requiring help rotations that compromised the defense. He hit one timely perimeter look, but otherwise looked hesitant to pull the trigger when the defense closed out. The defensive liabilities slightly outweighed his minimal offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S LaMelo Ball 36.5m
36
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+22.1

Dictated the entire tempo of the game with relentless pick-and-roll manipulation and deep pull-up gravity. His willingness to take and make audacious transition threes completely broke Boston's defensive shell. Kept the turnover damage minimal despite an enormous usage rate, driving a highly efficient offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 6/15 (40.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 36.9%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Scoring +27.3
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +9.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.2
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kon Knueppel 35.4m
13
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.5

Poor shot selection and heavy perimeter bricklaying dragged down an otherwise active defensive shift. His inability to finish through contact on drives resulted in empty possessions that fueled transition opportunities for Boston. Despite strong rotational closeouts, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips created a massive negative swing.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.6%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -26.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Brandon Miller 33.9m
20
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.1

Settled for heavily contested pull-ups late in the shot clock rather than attacking downhill. His negative impact score stems largely from defensive lapses on backcuts and poor navigation through off-ball screens. While the mid-range touch looked smooth, the perimeter shot selection bailed out the defense too often.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Scoring +13.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Moussa Diabaté 32.9m
2
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.8

Elite defensive positioning and rim deterrence were overshadowed by complete offensive invisibility. He failed to establish deep post seals against Boston's frontcourt, leading to clogged driving lanes for his guards. The defensive metrics popped, but his inability to punish switches ultimately hurt the team's halfcourt flow.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -29.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +5.4
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 52.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Miles Bridges 31.7m
13
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.4

Took a backseat offensively compared to his recent scoring tear, functioning more as a connective piece. A lack of aggressive rim pressure limited his overall ceiling, though he maintained positive value by securing contested defensive boards. His selective spot-up attempts kept the spacing honest even when he wasn't dominating the usage.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +15.2
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Struggled to contain quicker wings on the perimeter, frequently getting blown by and forcing the defense into scramble mode. His offensive contributions were entirely dependent on standstill corner looks, offering zero secondary playmaking. The negative impact largely reflects the defensive breakdowns and late rotations he surrendered during key second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Sion James 18.9m
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.7

Provided absolute clamps at the point of attack, blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs to disrupt the opponent's rhythm. However, his offensive execution was disastrous, featuring rushed perimeter looks and zero gravity in the corners. The defensive masterclass was nearly entirely offset by his inability to capitalize on wide-open spot-up opportunities.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 13.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring -3.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +4.4
Defense +6.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Maximized a short stint by executing flawless verticality at the rim and setting bone-crushing screens. He never forced the action, rolling hard to the basket to collapse the weakside defense. This disciplined, mistake-free execution in the paint generated a highly efficient positive swing.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg +25.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Josh Green 7.5m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

Injected immediate energy during a brief rotation by hunting loose balls and pushing the pace. He stayed strictly within his role, taking only high-value looks when the defense collapsed. This low-mistake, high-motor cameo provided a stabilizing presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -52.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.7

Barely registered a pulse during a fleeting appearance, looking a step slow on defensive rotations. He hoisted a contested look early in the shot clock that immediately led to an opponent transition score. The brief stint was entirely forgettable and slightly detrimental to the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0