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 shooters to compare their shots on the court
PHI 2P — 3P —
BOS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 167 attempts

PHI PHI Shot-making Δ

Embiid 12/23 +0.7
Maxey Hard 10/18 +6.1
George Hard 6/13 +3.0
Grimes Hard 5/8 +5.2
Edgecombe Hard 3/8 +0.8
Oubre Jr. 2/5 -1.6
Walker Hard 0/2 -2.2
Drummond Hard 1/1 +1.9

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Brown 9/23 -4.7
Tatum Hard 8/19 -0.3
Pritchard Hard 5/10 +0.7
Queta Open 4/8 -2.1
White Hard 2/8 -4.2
Hauser Hard 3/7 +0.9
Vučević Hard 3/6 +1.5
Scheierman Hard 1/2 +1.0
Garza Hard 1/2 +0.1
Walsh Hard 0/2 -1.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
PHI
BOS
39/78 Field Goals 36/89
50.0% Field Goal % 40.4%
15/42 3-Pointers 11/39
35.7% 3-Point % 28.2%
20/23 Free Throws 14/23
87.0% Free Throw % 60.9%
64.1% True Shooting % 48.9%
51 Total Rebounds 54
5 Offensive 15
42 Defensive 34
24 Assists 25
2.40 Assist/TO Ratio 2.08
9 Turnovers 12
5 Steals 6
3 Blocks 0
20 Fouls 17
34 Points in Paint 40
5 Fast Break Pts 9
12 Points off TOs 10
9 Second Chance Pts 10
25 Bench Points 29
17 Largest Lead 13
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Tyrese Maxey
25 PTS · 10 REB · 5 AST · 42.5 MIN
+24.9
2
Jayson Tatum
24 PTS · 16 REB · 4 AST · 40.6 MIN
+22.3
3
Joel Embiid
33 PTS · 4 REB · 8 AST · 38.9 MIN
+16.3
4
Neemias Queta
8 PTS · 14 REB · 1 AST · 26.2 MIN
+9.3
5
Quentin Grimes
18 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 24.1 MIN
+8.7
6
Paul George
16 PTS · 9 REB · 7 AST · 43.3 MIN
+7.3
7
Jaylen Brown
22 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 40.6 MIN
+6.8
8
Payton Pritchard
12 PTS · 2 REB · 6 AST · 26.1 MIN
+5.7
9
VJ Edgecombe
10 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 39.9 MIN
+4.0
10
Dalano Banton
0 PTS · 0 REB · 0 AST · 0.0 MIN
0.0
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 PHI shot clock Team TURNOVER 113–97
Q4 0:23 K. Lowry REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 113–97
Q4 0:24 MISS A. Williams Free Throw 2 of 2 113–97
Q4 0:24 A. Williams Free Throw 1 of 2 (1 PTS) 113–97
Q4 0:24 K. Lowry shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Williams 2 FT) 113–96
Q4 0:24 A. Williams REBOUND (Off:1 Def:0) 113–96
Q4 0:25 MISS A. Williams Layup 113–96
Q4 0:40 D. Barlow Free Throw 2 of 2 (2 PTS) 113–96
Q4 0:40 D. Barlow Free Throw 1 of 2 (1 PTS) 112–96
Q4 0:40 B. Scheierman shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Barlow 2 FT) 111–96
Q4 0:40 D. Barlow REBOUND (Off:2 Def:1) 111–96
Q4 0:41 MISS J. Walker 24' 3PT 111–96
Q4 1:01 T. Watford REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 111–96
Q4 1:06 MISS B. Scheierman 27' pullup 3PT 111–96
Q4 1:16 J. Walsh REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 111–96

GAME ANALYSIS

GET THIS IN YOUR INBOX

Every breakdown for your team — free, the morning after the game.

Follow your team — free

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BOS Boston Celtics
S Jayson Tatum 40.6m
24
pts
16
reb
4
ast
Impact
+22.3

Tatum dominated the glass with a massive 16-rebound effort and disrupted passing lanes to grab an above-average 3 steals. However, his individual defense was highly exploitable (opponents shot 6-of-7 against him), and his 4 turnovers slightly dampened his +12.2 Offense credit.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.6m
Scoring +14.4
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +9.7
Defense +7.1
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jaylen Brown 40.6m
22
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.8

Brown endured a brutal shooting night, needing 23 attempts to scrape together 22 points as his perimeter touch (1-of-4 from deep) abandoned him. He salvaged his overall impact by flashing solid defensive engagement, grabbing 2 loose balls and holding his matchups to 40% shooting to earn a +3.4 Defense credit.

Shooting
FG 9/23 (39.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.6m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Derrick White 36.2m
6
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.0

White's offensive slump deepened as he bricked all four of his three-point attempts, managing just 6 points on the night. Despite the scoring woes, he remained an absolute menace at the point of attack, suffocating his assignments and holding them to a dismal 2-of-10 from the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -22.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 26.2m
8
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.3

Queta operated as a relentless interior enforcer, vacuuming up 14 rebounds and contesting 11 shots to protect the paint. While his foul trouble (5 fouls) limited his defensive ceiling, his efficient finishing around the rim drove a stellar +11.0 Offense credit.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +16.8
Defense -5.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sam Hauser 19.9m
8
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Hauser struggled to find his usual perimeter rhythm, scoring just 8 points while committing 2 turnovers. He did provide some value on the other end, holding his defensive assignments to a stifling 2-of-7 shooting mark to earn a +0.3 Defense credit.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -55.5
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.7

Pritchard shifted away from his usual microwave scoring role, focusing instead on mistake-free playmaking to dish out 6 assists with zero turnovers. His outside shot wasn't falling (1-of-5 from deep), but his steady hand running the offense earned him a +11.2 Offense credit.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 16.0m
1
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

Walsh was a complete non-factor offensively, missing both of his shots and scoring just a single point from the free-throw line. He made his mark through sheer hustle, generating 3 deflections and 2 steals, though his on-ball defense was highly porous as opponents shot 4-of-5 against him.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.5

Vučević flashed some floor-spacing utility by hitting a pair of threes, but his interior presence was virtually non-existent. He grabbed a below-average 2 rebounds and was relentlessly targeted on the other end, allowing opponents to shoot a blistering 7-of-9 when he was the primary defender.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -35.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.4

Scheierman was entirely invisible during his 8 minutes of action, registering zero rebounds or assists while attempting just two shots. His lack of peripheral engagement and a -0.8 Defense credit highlighted a shift where he failed to impact the game on either end.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -22.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Luka Garza 5.7m
4
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

Garza's typical interior production vanished, as he failed to grab a single rebound and managed just 4 points in limited minutes. He did chip in with 3 contests and a loose-ball recovery, but his overall footprint was drastically reduced compared to his season averages.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.6

Harper Jr. made a fleeting two-minute appearance, missing his only field goal attempt. He failed to record any other statistics, serving merely as an end-of-bench placeholder.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

González saw just two minutes of garbage time, contesting one shot and forcing a miss on his only defensive assignment. He did not attempt a shot or log any traditional box score stats.

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 2.0m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

Williams spent his 93 seconds on the floor drawing a foul and converting one free throw. He managed to secure a rebound and successfully defend his lone matchup, maximizing his brief cameo.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Paul George 43.3m
16
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+7.3

George leaned into a gritty, two-way playmaking role rather than forcing his own offense, handing out an above-average 7 assists while crashing the glass for 9 rebounds. His +7.1 Defense credit was well-earned, as he suffocated his primary matchups and held them to a dismal 5-of-18 shooting mark from the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.3m
Scoring +10.9
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tyrese Maxey 42.5m
25
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+24.9

Maxey paired his typical high-volume scoring (25 points on 56% shooting) with a shocking level of defensive and rebounding engagement. He more than doubled his season average on the glass with 10 boards and locked down his matchups (2-of-8 shooting), fueling an elite +12.4 Defense credit.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.2%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.5m
Scoring +19.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +6.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S VJ Edgecombe 39.9m
10
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.0

Edgecombe's scoring volume dipped well below his season average (10 points), but he compensated by transforming into a disruptive perimeter nuisance. He racked up 5 deflections and held his assignments to just 5-of-17 shooting, driving a strong +5.9 Defense credit that outweighed his quiet night attacking the rim.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +7.0
Defense -2.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Joel Embiid 38.9m
33
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+16.3

Embiid operated as an overwhelming offensive hub, pouring in an above-average 33 points and dishing out 8 assists to generate a massive +27.3 Offense credit. While his perimeter jumper failed him (0-of-5 from deep), his sheer physical dominance yielded 10 free throw attempts and 6 screen assists to constantly warp the defense.

Shooting
FG 12/23 (52.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.2%
USG% 37.3%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Scoring +24.1
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 31.6m
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.2

Oubre's offensive rhythm completely evaporated, managing just 4 points on five shot attempts as his recent perimeter slump (16% from deep over his last five games) continued. Despite the scoring drought, he stayed engaged on the margins by generating 3 deflections and 2 screen assists to salvage a +2.5 Hustle credit.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 7.2%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.7

Grimes exploded as a lethal floor-spacer off the bench, burying 4-of-7 from deep to nearly double his season scoring average with 18 points. This blistering perimeter touch drove a +14.6 Offense credit, though he did surrender some ground on the other end by allowing his matchups to shoot 55%.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +36.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Scoring +15.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

In just 7 minutes of action, Drummond provided a hyper-efficient jolt to the second unit, hitting his only three-point attempt and setting 3 screen assists. His +3.4 Defense credit reflects a solid interior presence, altering shots and holding opponents to 40% shooting when targeted.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 133.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

Barlow was virtually invisible during his brief 6-minute stint, failing to attempt a single field goal. While he managed to scrape together a +5.0 Offense credit by converting a pair of free throws, his lack of defensive disruption left him as a marginal factor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -50.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kyle Lowry 1.6m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.4

Lowry's 93-second cameo was entirely uneventful outside of grabbing a single rebound. He did not attempt a shot or register any playmaking stats, continuing a trend of offensive invisibility.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

Watford was deployed for under two minutes, grabbing one rebound and successfully defending his lone matchup attempt. The short leash reflects his recent slide out of the regular rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
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
-0.2

Terry barely broke a sweat in his 93 seconds of floor time. He contested one shot but otherwise failed to impact the box score in any meaningful way.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
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
-11.1

Walker rushed his offense during a brief 93-second appearance, bricking both of his three-point attempts. His inability to convert those quick looks resulted in a -1.8 Offense credit and a quick hook.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Adem Bona 0.1m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Bona saw just 8 seconds of garbage-time action. He merely logged cardio without recording a single box score or hustle statistic.

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 0.1m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0