Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
BOS lead NOP lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
NOP 2P — 3P —
BOS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 192 attempts

NOP NOP Shot-making Δ

Fears Hard 13/29 +0.5
Hawkins Hard 8/15 +4.4
Queen 9/14 +3.2
Alexander Hard 4/10 +0.2
Poole 3/10 -2.7
Oduro 5/8 +1.8
Peavy 1/7 -5.5
Looney Hard 0/2 -2.0
Dickinson Hard 1/1 +1.1

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Pritchard Hard 7/14 +6.5
Hauser Hard 8/13 +11.9
Brown 8/13 +4.0
Garza 6/13 -2.3
White Hard 3/9 +1.7
Vučević Hard 5/7 +5.5
González 4/7 +2.3
Harper Jr. 3/7 -0.7
Scheierman Hard 3/6 +1.5
Walsh Hard 2/4 +1.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
NOP
BOS
44/96 Field Goals 52/96
45.8% Field Goal % 54.2%
9/32 3-Pointers 29/59
28.1% 3-Point % 49.2%
21/30 Free Throws 11/15
70.0% Free Throw % 73.3%
54.0% True Shooting % 70.2%
58 Total Rebounds 53
14 Offensive 9
30 Defensive 35
22 Assists 35
1.69 Assist/TO Ratio 2.50
13 Turnovers 13
6 Steals 9
3 Blocks 5
19 Fouls 26
56 Points in Paint 40
18 Fast Break Pts 26
17 Points off TOs 18
21 Second Chance Pts 14
44 Bench Points 75
2 Largest Lead 41
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Derik Queen
25 PTS · 11 REB · 4 AST · 39.3 MIN
+26.48
2
Jeremiah Fears
36 PTS · 3 REB · 6 AST · 44.0 MIN
+25.64
3
Sam Hauser
24 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 27.9 MIN
+20.52
4
Payton Pritchard
21 PTS · 3 REB · 10 AST · 29.6 MIN
+19.15
5
Nikola Vučević
14 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 18.8 MIN
+16.07
6
Josh Oduro
12 PTS · 12 REB · 1 AST · 23.9 MIN
+15.35
7
Hugo González
10 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 25.4 MIN
+13.07
8
Luka Garza
14 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 16.1 MIN
+13.05
9
Neemias Queta
7 PTS · 10 REB · 2 AST · 13.1 MIN
+11.13
10
Jordan Hawkins
20 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 23.0 MIN
+9.75
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:02 BOS shot clock Team TURNOVER 118–144
Q4 0:26 D. Queen Free Throw 2 of 2 (25 PTS) 118–144
Q4 0:26 D. Queen Free Throw 1 of 2 (24 PTS) 117–144
Q4 0:26 H. González personal FOUL (4 PF) (Queen 2 FT) 116–144
Q4 0:33 J. Oduro REBOUND (Off:6 Def:6) 116–144
Q4 0:35 MISS B. Scheierman 24' running 3PT 116–144
Q4 0:38 L. Garza REBOUND (Off:4 Def:2) 116–144
Q4 0:40 L. Garza BLOCK (2 BLK) 116–144
Q4 0:40 MISS J. Fears driving Layup - blocked 116–144
Q4 0:46 L. Garza driving DUNK (14 PTS) 116–144
Q4 1:06 J. Hawkins Free Throw 2 of 2 (20 PTS) 116–142
Q4 1:06 J. Hawkins Free Throw 1 of 2 (19 PTS) 115–142
Q4 1:06 M. Shulga shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Hawkins 2 FT) 114–142
Q4 1:07 J. Hawkins REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 114–142
Q4 1:09 MISS D. Queen driving finger roll Layup 114–142

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 28.7m
23
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

Stagnant offensive flow and defensive breakdowns away from the ball severely tanked his net impact, despite efficient individual scoring. Opponents consistently exploited his side of the floor during secondary actions, neutralizing his offensive output. He settled for tough, contested looks early in the shot clock that short-circuited team momentum.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +36.4
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Scoring +18.4
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -18.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 7
S Sam Hauser 27.9m
24
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.8

Elite floor spacing and quick-trigger shot-making completely warped the opposing defense, driving a strong positive impact. Defenders were forced to over-help on his perimeter gravity, opening up driving lanes for teammates. A few minor defensive slip-ups kept the score from being astronomical, but his offensive role execution was flawless.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 8/12 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.3%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +19.8
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +7.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense -5.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jordan Walsh 22.0m
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

Strong point-of-attack defense and active hands generated positive momentum, but offensive passivity limited his overall effectiveness. He frequently passed up open looks, which allowed the defense to ignore him and pack the paint against primary creators. The defensive metrics were excellent, yet the lack of offensive threat resulted in a slight negative rating.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +35.4
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Derrick White 15.9m
9
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.6

A cold shooting night from the perimeter was perfectly counterbalanced by his elite connective passing and defensive IQ. He consistently made the right read as a secondary ball-handler, keeping the offense humming even when his own shots weren't falling. His timely rotations and ability to navigate screens ensured he remained a net-neutral presence.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +46.2
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 13.1m
7
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.2

Perfect shot selection and imposing rim protection anchored a highly efficient stint on the floor. He deterred multiple drives into the paint, functioning as a massive deterrent in drop coverage. By strictly taking what the defense gave him offensively, he maximized his value without wasting a single possession.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +44.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +10.8
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
21
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
+9.1

Relentless pace-pushing and high-level shot creation off the dribble forced the defense onto its heels all night. He consistently broke down the primary defender to generate high-quality looks for the second unit. Active hands in the passing lanes further boosted his impact, turning defensive stops into immediate transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.6%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +41.1
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +16.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.2

Excellent on-ball defensive pressure was slightly undermined by poor spacing and timing on the offensive end. He disrupted several opponent sets with his length, but struggled to find his spots within the team's offensive flow. The resulting disjointed possessions caused a marginal negative dip in his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.9

Defensive liabilities were repeatedly exposed as opponents successfully hunted him in pick-and-roll switches. While he provided adequate spacing on offense, his inability to stay in front of quicker guards compromised the team's defensive shell. The constant need for help defense behind him led to easy rotation buckets for the opposition.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.3

Superb offensive versatility from the high post allowed him to pick apart the defense, driving a stellar positive rating. He punished drop coverages by confidently stepping into pick-and-pop situations, stretching the opposing bigs away from the rim. Solid positional defense ensured he didn't give back the advantages he created on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +28.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Scoring +11.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Luka Garza 16.1m
14
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Brute force on the interior and a willingness to battle through contact generated a massive positive swing. He relentlessly attacked the offensive glass, creating valuable second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's spirit. Despite some missed perimeter looks, his sheer physical presence dictated the terms of engagement in the paint.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.9%
USG% 34.1%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +7.6
Defense -1.3
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
7
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Gritty defensive assignments and timely weak-side help allowed him to carve out a slight positive impact. He stayed within his role offensively, moving the ball quickly and avoiding costly mistakes. His physical profile helped neutralize the opponent's wing depth during crucial rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring +3.9
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Max Shulga 5.6m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.5

A lack of assertiveness during his brief stint left the offense playing essentially four-on-five. He failed to bend the defense or create any meaningful advantages, leading to stagnant possessions. The negative rating reflects a player who was completely bypassed by the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -94.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Jeremiah Fears 44.0m
36
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+23.4

Incredible offensive usage drove a positive rating, though his high volume of missed jumpers kept the overall impact from being elite. He constantly pressured the rim and created advantages, forcing the defense into rotation. A heavy workload resulted in some fatigue-driven errors, but his sheer aggression dictated the pace of the game.

Shooting
FG 13/29 (44.8%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 7/11 (63.6%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 30.7%
Net Rtg -35.6
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.0m
Scoring +22.6
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +7.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Derik Queen 39.3m
25
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+19.6

Dominant two-way execution fueled a massive positive rating, anchored by exceptional defensive positioning that disrupted opponent actions. High-value shot selection in the paint kept the offense highly efficient during his minutes. His relentless activity on the glass and in passing lanes created a massive swing in possession quality.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 69.6%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -29.2
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Scoring +20.4
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +7.2
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S Micah Peavy 36.5m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.0

Severe offensive struggles cratered his overall impact, as forced shots and poor execution derailed possessions. Despite generating some value through active hustle plays, his inability to convert looks completely stalled the offense while he was on the floor. The staggering negative rating reflects a player who became a liability in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Scoring -2.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jordan Poole 28.7m
11
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.6

Inefficient perimeter chucking and empty possessions severely damaged his net impact. While he showed surprising engagement on the defensive end, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips prevented any positive momentum. His erratic decision-making with the ball in his hands remains a glaring issue that opponents eagerly exploited.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -62.5
+/- -40
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Scoring +4.8
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Kevon Looney 24.8m
0
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.2

A complete lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint, dragging down his overall rating. He still managed to salvage some value through solid defensive rotations and typical dirty work on the interior. However, the offensive spacing issues he created ultimately outweighed his defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.9%
Net Rtg -50.1
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.7
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Oduro 23.9m
12
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.4

Exceptional interior efficiency and relentless effort plays translated into a highly productive shift. He capitalized on favorable matchups in the post, punishing smaller defenders without forcing bad looks. His ability to secure extra possessions through sheer hustle provided a crucial stabilizing presence.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +15.2
Defense -5.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
20
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.8

Despite finding a great rhythm as a play finisher, subtle defensive miscommunications and a lack of secondary hustle plays dragged his net score slightly into the red. He was lethal coming off pin-downs, but gave up too much ground in transition defense. The scoring punch was evident, yet the overall lineup suffered during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Scoring +15.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Defensive lapses at the point of attack allowed straight-line drives that compromised the team's shell, leading to a negative overall rating. He found some rhythm hunting his own shot on the perimeter, but it wasn't enough to offset the points given back on the other end. Opponents successfully targeted him in isolation sequences.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.6

A brief, low-leverage stint yielded a perfectly neutral impact score. He executed his limited assignments without making any glaring mistakes, keeping the ship steady during a short rotation window. There simply wasn't enough floor time to swing the momentum in either direction.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -81.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0