Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
BOS lead PHI lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click a shooter to isolate their shots on the court
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 179 attempts

PHI PHI Shot-making Δ

Maxey Hard 11/28 -1.0
Edgecombe Hard 12/20 +10.3
George Hard 7/13 +3.2
Oubre Jr. Hard 5/10 +1.9
Grimes Hard 2/6 +0.6
Edwards 2/5 -0.6
Drummond 4/4 +4.3
Bona Open 0/4 -4.6

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Brown Hard 11/24 +2.0
Tatum 8/19 -2.8
White Hard 3/12 -4.3
Hauser Hard 2/8 -2.3
Pritchard Hard 2/8 -3.9
Vučević Hard 3/7 +0.1
Queta 3/4 +2.3
Scheierman Hard 2/2 +3.2
Garza 1/2 -0.5
Harper Jr. Hard 0/1 -0.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
PHI
BOS
43/90 Field Goals 35/89
47.8% Field Goal % 39.3%
19/39 3-Pointers 13/50
48.7% 3-Point % 26.0%
6/11 Free Throws 14/18
54.5% Free Throw % 77.8%
58.5% True Shooting % 50.0%
49 Total Rebounds 61
12 Offensive 18
30 Defensive 32
18 Assists 24
2.00 Assist/TO Ratio 1.85
7 Turnovers 11
6 Steals 3
4 Blocks 4
17 Fouls 17
32 Points in Paint 38
12 Fast Break Pts 11
15 Points off TOs 10
19 Second Chance Pts 22
21 Bench Points 20
16 Largest Lead 13
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
VJ Edgecombe
30 PTS · 10 REB · 2 AST · 35.3 MIN
+31.92
2
Jaylen Brown
36 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 38.2 MIN
+23.52
3
Tyrese Maxey
29 PTS · 4 REB · 9 AST · 39.8 MIN
+22.86
4
Andre Drummond
10 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 26.3 MIN
+14.14
5
Paul George
19 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 35.1 MIN
+13.69
6
Jayson Tatum
19 PTS · 14 REB · 9 AST · 39.0 MIN
+13.13
7
Baylor Scheierman
5 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 11.4 MIN
+8.56
8
Nikola Vučević
9 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 18.3 MIN
+7.06
9
Kelly Oubre Jr.
12 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 32.2 MIN
+6.18
10
Neemias Queta
8 PTS · 6 REB · 0 AST · 27.8 MIN
+5.78
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:11 PHI shot clock Team TURNOVER 111–97
Q4 0:35 L. Garza driving reverse Layup (2 PTS) (R. Harper Jr. 1 AST) 111–97
Q4 0:41 L. Garza REBOUND (Off:2 Def:1) 111–95
Q4 0:43 MISS M. Shulga 25' 3PT 111–95
Q4 0:56 L. Garza REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 111–95
Q4 1:01 MISS R. Harper Jr. 26' pullup 3PT 111–95
Q4 1:09 T. Maxey 27' 3PT step back (29 PTS) 111–95
Q4 1:30 V. Edgecombe REBOUND (Off:4 Def:6) 108–95
Q4 1:32 MISS L. Garza 3PT 108–95
Q4 1:52 L. Garza REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 108–95
Q4 1:52 MISS P. George Free Throw 2 of 2 108–95
Q4 1:52 TEAM offensive REBOUND 108–95
Q4 1:52 MISS P. George Free Throw 1 of 2 108–95
Q4 1:52 J. Tatum personal FOUL (5 PF) (George 2 FT) 108–95
Q4 2:04 J. Brown 29' 3PT step back (36 PTS) 108–95

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 Jayson Tatum 39.0m
19
pts
14
reb
9
ast
Impact
+15.5

Tatum operated as a massive connective hub, pulling down an above-average 14 rebounds and dishing 9 assists to drive a dominant +17.8 Hustle credit. While his scoring efficiency dipped (8-of-19 shooting), his sheer volume and playmaking kept the offense flowing despite a -7.8 turnover penalty.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.8%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +17.8
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Derrick White 38.9m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.1

White endured a grueling offensive slump, misfiring on 8 of his 10 three-point attempts to finish well below his scoring average. His struggles were compounded by sloppy ball security, as his three turnovers generated a -5.9 penalty that severely undercut his connective value.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.1
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 39.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Jaylen Brown 38.2m
36
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+26.5

Brown unleashed a brute-force offensive onslaught, pouring in an above-average 36 points fueled by excellent perimeter shot-making (+7.9 ShotMaking credit). This massive scoring volume (+25.4 Scoring credit) carried the offense, though his three turnovers still extracted a -8.5 penalty on his overall value.

Shooting
FG 11/24 (45.8%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Scoring +25.4
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +7.9
Hustle +7.9
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -8.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Neemias Queta 27.8m
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Queta was highly efficient as a finisher, converting 3-of-4 shots to post a +7.4 Scoring credit. However, his overall value was dragged down by defensive lapses (-1.9 Defense credit) and a lack of playmaking involvement.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +3.7
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Sam Hauser 25.1m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Hauser suffered through a frigid perimeter shooting night, connecting on just 2-of-8 attempts from deep to limit his offensive utility. His struggles extended to the defensive end, where opponents scorched him by shooting 62% when he was the primary defender.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.2

Pritchard's typically lethal perimeter jumper completely abandoned him, as he missed all four of his deep attempts to post a negative Scoring credit (-0.3). He tried to compensate as a facilitator with 5 assists, but opponents exploited him defensively, shooting 62% when he was the nearest defender.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -33.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Vučević provided a solid offensive lift off the bench, scoring an above-average 9 points without committing a single turnover. He also chipped in on the glass to drive a +5.4 Hustle credit, though his defensive impact (-1.9) remained a weak point.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Scheierman maximized his limited touches, converting both of his field goal attempts to notch a highly efficient +5.0 Scoring credit. He also provided a surprisingly sturdy defensive presence (+2.4 Defense credit) during his brief stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -31.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

Walsh was an absolute non-factor offensively, failing to score while attempting just a single shot in his 9 minutes of action. He managed to grab 3 rebounds to salvage a +3.8 Hustle credit, but his overall rotational footprint was minimal.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.0%
Net Rtg -88.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.3

Harper Jr. barely broke a sweat in under two minutes of garbage-time action. He missed his only shot attempt and recorded a single assist, leaving virtually no statistical footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 1.9m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Garza saw less than two minutes of floor time, managing to grab 3 rebounds and convert his only two-point attempt. His brief appearance was purely a garbage-time cameo, though he did secure two loose-ball recoveries to boost his Hustle credit (+2.8).

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Max Shulga 1.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.4

Shulga was deployed for just under two minutes of mop-up duty at the end of the game. He missed his lone three-point attempt and failed to record any other counting stats.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 39.8m
29
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
+19.1

Maxey embraced a grueling offensive workload, attempting 28 shots to generate a massive +17.1 Scoring credit. While his overall efficiency was muted, his perimeter shot-making (+7.8) and above-average playmaking (9 assists) kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 11/28 (39.3%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.2%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Scoring +17.1
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +7.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S VJ Edgecombe 35.3m
30
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+34.5

Edgecombe exploded as a high-volume offensive engine, pouring in 30 points fueled by elite perimeter shot-making (+8.5 ShotMaking credit). He paired this massive scoring burst (+24.7 Scoring credit) with relentless activity on the glass, grabbing an above-average 10 rebounds to dominate the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Scoring +24.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +8.5
Hustle +10.8
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Paul George 35.1m
19
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.4

George commanded the offense with a highly efficient scoring output (+13.3 Scoring credit) on 7-of-13 shooting. His shot-making (+4.5) was a clear positive, though he operated more as a finisher than a primary facilitator in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Scoring +13.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 32.2m
12
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Oubre provided an efficient scoring punch (+7.6 Scoring credit) while taking care of the ball, logging zero turnovers. However, his defensive impact lagged (-3.7 Defense credit), as his primary matchups shot a comfortable 57% when he was the nearest defender.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +4.4
Defense -3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Adem Bona 21.6m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.1

Bona was an absolute force as a rim deterrent, holding opponents to a stifling 2-of-13 (15%) shooting when guarded while logging 10 contests. Unfortunately, his offensive invisibility (-3.5 Scoring credit) and a -3.1 Turnover penalty completely neutralized his defensive value.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Scoring -3.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.6

Drummond maximized his minutes with flawless efficiency, converting all four of his field goal attempts to drive a +9.5 Scoring credit. His immense physical presence was felt in the margins, generating 8 screen assists and 9 shot contests to anchor a +10.2 Hustle credit.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +9.5
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +10.2
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Edwards provided a modest spark of energy, logging 6 contests to fuel a solid +5.1 Hustle credit. However, he struggled to contain his defensive assignments, allowing opponents to shoot 55% when he was the nearest defender.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.4

Grimes struggled to find his rhythm, posting a below-average 6 points while failing to generate much connective value. Though his perimeter stroke was solid (2-of-3 from deep), a lack of overall volume and a slight turnover penalty (-2.4) marginalized his impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.5

Barlow was completely invisible offensively during his brief stint, failing to attempt a single shot. His rotational minutes were further hampered by defensive struggles, reflected in a -3.1 Defense credit.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +71.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0