Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
BOS lead DAL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
DAL 2P — 3P —
BOS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 167 attempts

DAL DAL Shot-making Δ

Doncic Hard 12/25 +1.2
Irving Hard 5/16 -1.8
Green Hard 5/8 +5.4
Jones Jr. 4/8 +0.3
Washington Hard 2/7 -3.5
Gafford Open 3/5 -1.0
Kleber Hard 1/3 -0.4
Hardy Open 1/2 -0.2
Lively II Open 1/2 -0.6
Exum Hard 1/1 +2.1

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Tatum 11/24 -3.1
Brown 7/23 -7.6
Holiday Open 7/14 -2.5
White Hard 4/10 +2.5
Hauser Hard 3/7 +1.3
Horford 3/6 +1.4
Porzingis 2/4 -0.7
Pritchard Hard 1/1 +2.7
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
DAL
BOS
35/78 Field Goals 38/89
44.9% Field Goal % 42.7%
11/37 3-Pointers 13/39
29.7% 3-Point % 33.3%
7/13 Free Throws 17/20
53.8% Free Throw % 85.0%
52.6% True Shooting % 54.2%
45 Total Rebounds 58
7 Offensive 15
28 Defensive 36
18 Assists 25
1.38 Assist/TO Ratio 2.78
13 Turnovers 7
4 Steals 9
4 Blocks 2
20 Fouls 15
42 Points in Paint 42
9 Fast Break Pts 16
6 Points off TOs 17
6 Second Chance Pts 11
25 Bench Points 16
0 Largest Lead 26
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jayson Tatum
31 PTS · 8 REB · 11 AST · 45.0 MIN
+28.33
2
Derrick White
14 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 38.1 MIN
+17.29
3
Al Horford
9 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 31.6 MIN
+13.54
4
Jrue Holiday
15 PTS · 11 REB · 4 AST · 43.1 MIN
+13.24
5
Josh Green
14 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 22.4 MIN
+12.28
6
Jaylen Brown
21 PTS · 8 REB · 6 AST · 44.2 MIN
+11.88
7
Luka Doncic
28 PTS · 12 REB · 5 AST · 43.4 MIN
+11.28
8
Kyrie Irving
15 PTS · 3 REB · 9 AST · 41.1 MIN
+11.05
9
Sam Hauser
8 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 17.1 MIN
+10.65
10
Daniel Gafford
6 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 10.9 MIN
+6.51
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:21 D. Powell REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 88–106
Q4 0:22 MISS S. Hauser 27' 3PT 88–106
Q4 0:32 S. Mykhailiuk REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 88–106
Q4 0:33 MISS J. Hardy driving DUNK 88–106
Q4 0:38 S. Hauser take personal FOUL (1 PF) 88–106
Q4 0:46 O. Prosper REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 88–106
Q4 0:48 MISS D. White 20' pullup Shot 88–106
Q4 1:09 J. Hardy 18' step back Jump Shot (3 PTS) 88–106
Q4 1:21 BOS shot clock Team TURNOVER 86–106
Q4 1:35 L. Kornet REBOUND (Off:1 Def:0) 86–106
Q4 1:38 MISS J. Tatum 26' step back 3PT 86–106
Q4 2:02 J. Hardy Free Throw 2 of 2 (1 PTS) 86–106
Q4 2:02 TEAM offensive REBOUND 85–106
Q4 2:02 MISS J. Hardy Free Throw 1 of 2 85–106
Q4 2:02 A. Horford shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Hardy 2 FT) 85–106

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

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Luka Dončić 43.4m
28
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.4

Astonishing defensive metrics (+11.7) and elite rebounding (+5.7 Hustle) kept his impact positive despite a surprisingly inefficient perimeter shooting night. The sheer volume of missed triples heavily taxed his scoring score, forcing him to rely on sheer physical dominance to salvage his overall value.

Shooting
FG 12/25 (48.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 36.3%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.4m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 7
S Kyrie Irving 41.1m
15
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
-3.8

Inefficient perimeter execution resulted in a massive shot-making penalty that erased the value of his robust playmaking and defensive engagement (+2.0). Even with strong hustle metrics (+3.4), his inability to convert difficult isolation looks ultimately dragged his overall impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.1m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S P.J. Washington 34.5m
4
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-16.2

Brutal perimeter execution completely cratered his overall value (-16.2), as severe shot-making penalties erased any positive contributions. While he remained engaged on the glass (+3.3 Hustle) and provided solid defensive resistance (+2.8), his inability to convert open looks derailed the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -40.6
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
10
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Despite solid defensive metrics (+1.8) and a positive box plus-minus, an inability to generate high-value offensive creation dragged his overall impact into the red. His perimeter shooting slump continued to limit spacing, forcing him to rely on transition hustle rather than half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -22.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Daniel Gafford 10.9m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.1

Operating as a low-maintenance interior anchor, he perfectly capitalized on his limited touches to drive a highly productive stint. Elite efficiency around the rim and relentless activity on the glass (+2.7 Hustle) fueled his positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -41.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.7

Extreme offensive passivity completely tanked his impact score (-7.7) despite a positive box plus-minus. While he chipped in on the glass (+1.0 Hustle), his failure to pressure the rim or generate gravity left the offense playing four-on-five during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Josh Green 22.4m
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.3

Blistering perimeter efficiency yielded a massive shot-making bonus that drove a highly impactful performance off the bench. He shattered his recent offensive slump by confidently stepping into his outside looks, perfectly complementing his baseline hustle and defensive connectivity.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Maxi Kleber 13.4m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

His refusal to aggressively hunt his shot or generate meaningful spacing allowed the defense to ignore him entirely. Complete offensive invisibility and a lack of defensive playmaking (+0.0 Def) resulted in a deeply negative impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -39.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Perfect shooting efficiency was not enough to overcome a near-invisible statistical footprint, keeping his impact hovering just below neutral. He failed to generate enough creation volume or defensive disruption (+0.3) to meaningfully tilt the game during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Without his typical high-volume shot-making to offset his defensive shortcomings, he was an active detriment to the floor balance. A complete lack of offensive production combined with defensive liabilities (-1.9) cratered his brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -1.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Mistake-free basketball rather than explosive creation drove a quiet but efficient cameo that yielded a slightly positive impact score. He managed to avoid the tunnel-vision traps that often plague his game, providing stable rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 75.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Embracing his role as a low-usage connector, he executed his assignments without demanding touches. Pure utility work and solid defensive positioning (+0.9) allowed him to post a marginally positive impact without attempting a single shot.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Logging mere cardio during his brief stint, he failed to leave any tangible imprint on the game beyond minor hustle (+0.7). A total lack of offensive engagement and zero defensive playmaking resulted in a slightly negative impact score.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Operating strictly as a defensive specialist, he avoided mistakes but failed to generate any creation value. Solid defensive rotations (+0.9) nearly offset his complete lack of offensive involvement.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
S Jayson Tatum 45.0m
31
pts
8
reb
11
ast
Impact
+14.2

Brilliantly pivoting away from his struggling perimeter stroke, he leveraged his gravity to create high-value looks for teammates while dominating the glass (+3.4 Hustle). Masterful playmaking and suffocating defensive metrics (+7.1) drove a dominant overall impact despite a cold night from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 11/24 (45.8%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.0m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaylen Brown 44.2m
21
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.5

Stubborn insistence on forcing contested jumpers dragged his overall value into the red, as a catastrophic shot-making penalty erased his elite defensive contributions (+4.9). Despite relentless effort on the glass (+3.2 Hustle), his brutal perimeter inefficiency could not be ignored.

Shooting
FG 7/23 (30.4%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.2m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jrue Holiday 43.1m
15
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.6

Costly decision-making in the half-court dragged his overall impact into the red, as severe turnover penalties and a lack of shot-making bonus completely erased a robust statistical line. Despite excellent rebounding (+2.4 Hustle) and solid defense (+2.2), he struggled to generate enough offensive gravity to offset those mistakes.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 16.8%
Net Rtg +24.7
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.1m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Derrick White 38.1m
14
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.0

Timely perimeter shot-making provided the exact offensive punch needed to complement his elite two-way connectivity. Suffocating point-of-attack defense (+7.7) and relentless rebounding (+4.2 Hustle) anchored a highly productive performance.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Al Horford 31.6m
9
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.3

Perfectly executing his role as a connective veteran, he punished defensive rotations from deep while locking down the paint. Elite defensive positioning (+8.7) and highly efficient floor-spacing fueled a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +31.9
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Sam Hauser 17.1m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.5

Willingness to engage in the dirty work provided massive rotational value, elevating his impact well beyond his typical floor-spacing role. Active rebounding (+3.5 Hustle) and timely defensive rotations (+1.9) anchored his positive metrics even with average shooting efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Failing to assert his typical offensive dominance, he allowed the defense to neutralize his spacing gravity. A lack of shot volume and a minor perimeter penalty negated his solid defensive presence (+1.9).

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Executing his drop-coverage assignments without demanding any offensive touches, he provided stable rotation minutes. Minor hustle contributions (+0.4) kept his impact slightly positive during a brief, low-usage stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Maximizing his brief opportunity by immediately punishing a defensive lapse from the perimeter, he generated a quick burst of positive impact. A flawless shooting cameo was all it took to tilt the math in his favor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Garbage-time minutes yielded a completely empty statistical profile and a slightly negative impact. He failed to register a single meaningful event on either end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.7m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast

Essentially logging cardio without tilting the floor in either direction, his brief appearance was entirely uneventful. A solitary defensive contribution (+0.3) was the only statistical blip during his time on the court.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.7m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0