Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
NYK lead BOS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
BOS 2P — 3P —
NYK 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 164 attempts

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Tatum 7/22 -8.1
Pritchard 10/20 +2.6
White Hard 2/10 -5.7
Scheierman Hard 7/8 +11.7
Vučević Hard 4/7 +2.6
Hauser Hard 2/7 -1.5
Queta Open 4/6 +0.4
Walsh 2/4 +0.2

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Brunson 10/19 +2.6
Hart 10/15 +8.2
Towns 6/12 -1.1
Anunoby Hard 4/10 -0.1
Clarkson 4/7 +1.0
McBride Hard 1/5 -2.2
Bridges 4/4 +5.0
Robinson Open 3/4 +0.4
Shamet Hard 1/4 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BOS
NYK
38/84 Field Goals 43/80
45.2% Field Goal % 53.8%
16/43 3-Pointers 15/35
37.2% 3-Point % 42.9%
14/16 Free Throws 11/15
87.5% Free Throw % 73.3%
58.2% True Shooting % 64.7%
48 Total Rebounds 42
13 Offensive 5
29 Defensive 25
23 Assists 29
2.09 Assist/TO Ratio 4.14
10 Turnovers 7
4 Steals 9
1 Blocks 2
16 Fouls 17
32 Points in Paint 46
12 Fast Break Pts 9
8 Points off TOs 14
18 Second Chance Pts 6
53 Bench Points 22
7 Largest Lead 13
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Baylor Scheierman
20 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 30.4 MIN
+19.79
2
Neemias Queta
10 PTS · 10 REB · 2 AST · 24.2 MIN
+19.07
3
Karl-Anthony Towns
16 PTS · 12 REB · 4 AST · 30.3 MIN
+18.95
4
Josh Hart
26 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 34.5 MIN
+17.65
5
Jalen Brunson
25 PTS · 1 REB · 10 AST · 36.9 MIN
+17.59
6
Payton Pritchard
23 PTS · 3 REB · 6 AST · 35.5 MIN
+15.89
7
Mitchell Robinson
7 PTS · 7 REB · 0 AST · 18.8 MIN
+14.79
8
Mikal Bridges
10 PTS · 2 REB · 6 AST · 30.9 MIN
+12.85
9
OG Anunoby
13 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 36.2 MIN
+10.04
10
Jayson Tatum
24 PTS · 13 REB · 8 AST · 39.8 MIN
+9.13
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM defensive REBOUND 106–112
Q4 0:02 MISS P. Pritchard 31' 3PT 106–112
Q4 0:15 J. Hart 25' 3PT (26 PTS) (J. Brunson 10 AST) 106–112
Q4 0:35 N. Vučević putback Layup (10 PTS) 106–109
Q4 0:35 N. Vučević REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 104–109
Q4 0:38 MISS P. Pritchard 26' 3PT 104–109
Q4 0:42 J. Hart 26' 3PT pullup (23 PTS) (M. Bridges 6 AST) 104–109
Q4 1:04 M. Bridges REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 104–106
Q4 1:07 MISS D. White 27' 3PT 104–106
Q4 1:26 J. Brunson Free Throw 2 of 2 (25 PTS) 104–106
Q4 1:26 TEAM offensive REBOUND 104–105
Q4 1:26 MISS J. Brunson Free Throw 1 of 2 104–105
Q4 1:26 N. Queta shooting personal FOUL (5 PF) (Brunson 2 FT) 104–105
Q4 1:32 K. Towns REBOUND (Off:2 Def:10) 104–105
Q4 1:35 MISS J. Tatum driving Layup 104–105

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

NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 36.9m
25
pts
1
reb
10
ast
Impact
+10.1

Constant defensive targeting by bigger wings erased the value of his elite mid-range shot creation. Opponents relentlessly forced him into switch actions, bleeding points on one end as fast as he generated them on the other.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.2%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Scoring +18.2
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +6.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S OG Anunoby 36.2m
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Smothering point-of-attack defense was completely overshadowed by offensive passivity and stalled possessions. He frequently passed up driving angles, allowing the defense to reset and bogging down the half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Josh Hart 34.5m
26
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.3

Uncharacteristic perimeter shot-making punished defenders who dared to sag off him, completely shifting the offensive geometry. Combined with his trademark transition pushes, this elite efficiency resulted in a highly dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.9%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +22.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +6.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Mikal Bridges 30.9m
10
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.2

Extreme offensive passivity severely limited his overall influence, as he rarely looked to attack despite perfect shooting splits. A lack of customary defensive disruption allowed his primary assignments to operate with unusual comfort.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg +27.2
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.0

Disciplined drop coverage and active hands in the passing lanes drove a surprisingly stout defensive rating. He capitalized on mismatches inside rather than settling for outside looks, anchoring a highly productive two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +7.5
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.7

Tenacious on-ball pressure couldn't make up for a string of forced, low-quality jumpers that killed offensive momentum. The inability to orchestrate clean sets in the half-court ultimately dragged his net rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.1

Brick-laying from the perimeter and soft closeouts on the other end created a massive negative swing during his minutes. He failed to provide the necessary floor-spacing, allowing the defense to aggressively pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.5

Absolute dominance in the painted area suffocated opposing drivers, generating a massive defensive spike. His relentless activity on the offensive glass created crucial second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's spirit.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +7.9
Defense +4.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.0

A complete lack of off-ball movement and defensive intensity neutralized his capable scoring bursts. He operated too heavily in isolation, stalling ball movement and allowing the defense to easily reset.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
S Jayson Tatum 39.8m
24
pts
13
reb
8
ast
Impact
+9.1

Massive volume of empty possessions dragged his net rating into the red, defined by settling for contested jumpers rather than attacking the paint. Excellent rotational defense and active rebounding partially salvaged what was otherwise a highly inefficient scoring night.

Shooting
FG 7/22 (31.8%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Scoring +12.2
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +15.5
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -14.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 6
S Derrick White 37.5m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

A complete inability to connect from deep cratered his offensive value, stalling out multiple half-court sets. While his perimeter defense remained characteristically disruptive, the sheer volume of wasted shooting possessions proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sam Hauser 31.5m
6
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.0

A sharp drop-off in perimeter efficiency tanked his overall impact, as he failed to capitalize on open spot-up opportunities. Despite holding his own defensively, his inability to stretch the floor at his usual rate stalled the offense.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Neemias Queta 24.2m
10
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.5

Dominant interior positioning drove a massive positive impact, converting high-percentage looks around the rim with ruthless consistency. His physical screen-setting and rim deterrence anchored the second unit's success during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +12.7
Defense +0.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jordan Walsh 17.4m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.2

Defensive lapses at the point of attack outweighed his capable spot-up shooting, resulting in a net-negative stint. Opponents consistently targeted him in isolation, exposing his footwork on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -22.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
23
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.5

Relentless dribble penetration and shot creation kept the offense afloat, though his overall impact was muted by defensive limitations. Opposing guards frequently shot over his contests, neutralizing the value of his scoring surge.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Scoring +15.6
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
20
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+15.3

Elite floor-spacing completely broke the opponent's defensive shell, punishing late rotations with near-perfect perimeter execution. This unexpected scoring eruption forced constant closeouts, opening up driving lanes for the rest of the rotation.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 6/7 (85.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Scoring +19.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +6.3
Hustle +4.1
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.2

Sluggish pick-and-roll coverage allowed opposing ball-handlers to walk into comfortable rhythm jumpers, dragging his overall rating down. His reliable post touches couldn't generate enough gravity to offset the defensive bleeding on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 90.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2