Boston Celtics

Eastern Conference

Boston
Celtics

HC Joe Mazzulla

59-30
L3

ROSTER — IMPACT RANKINGS

Jaylen Brown
Guard-Forward Yr 9 79G (79S)
+15.1
28.3 pts
6.8 reb
5.0 ast
34.6 min

This late-season stretch was defined by Brown's evolution into a brute-force offensive engine whose value fluctuated wildly based on his shot selection and peripheral effort. He was entirely capable of hijacking an offense, for better or worse. Despite pouring in 29 points on 03/30 vs ATL, his disastrous 9-for-29 shooting dragged his overall value down to a meager +1.3 Impact, exposing the hidden costs of his forced, inefficient attempts. When he tightened his shot profile, he was utterly unguardable. During the 03/16 vs PHX matchup, Brown torched the nets for 41 points on just 20 attempts, generating a monstrous +31.0 Impact by pairing ruthless scoring efficiency with relentless defensive pressure. His most fascinating growth, however, came as a raw playmaker and glass-cleaner. On 02/19 vs GSW, he engineered a +8.5 Impact despite a modest 23 points by bullying his way to 15 rebounds and 13 assists, doing the grueling physical work to create immense non-scoring value.

Jayson Tatum
Forward-Guard Yr 8 23G (23S)
+12.9
22.6 pts
10.1 reb
6.0 ast
34.1 min
Payton Pritchard
Guard Yr 5 87G (50S)
+8.0
16.7 pts
3.9 reb
5.1 ast
32.0 min

Wild volatility and the hidden costs of a shoot-first mentality defined this late-season stretch for Payton Pritchard. Even when his raw scoring numbers looked sharp, his underlying metrics often painted a grim picture. During the Mar 20 vs MEM matchup, he poured in 19 points but registered a brutal -11.5 impact score because his terrible early-clock shot selection actively sabotaged the team's offensive rhythm. He could still flip a game single-handedly when his jumper caught fire, as seen on Mar 27 vs ATL when he dropped 36 points and earned a stellar +8.5 impact by absolutely torching the opponent's drop coverage from beyond the arc. Sometimes, pure effort had to bridge the gap. On Mar 16 vs PHX, he managed a +3.0 impact despite committing seven turnovers because his relentless energy and elite hustle plays (+11.8 hustle score) kept his head above water. Ultimately, this twenty-game run revealed a guard whose explosive offensive bursts were constantly fighting a tug-of-war against his own erratic decision-making.

Derrick White
Guard Yr 8 85G (85S)
+7.7
16.0 pts
4.4 reb
5.1 ast
34.3 min

A blistering early-March peak quickly devolved into a brutal offensive slump that drained Derrick White's effectiveness during this late-season stretch. He initially found ways to win on the margins even when his jumper misfired. During Mar 14 vs WAS, he generated a strong +8.0 impact despite scoring a modest 15 points, relying on phenomenal hustle (+7.3) and lockdown perimeter defense (+9.4 def) to completely salvage a rough shooting night. However, the hidden costs of his offensive game soon began to damage the team. Despite dropping 21 points during Mar 16 vs PHX, his net impact dragged to a concerning -7.2 because eight missed field goals and costly turnovers quietly sabotaged the offense. By late March, his jumper completely abandoned him. Defenders simply sagged off him during Mar 27 vs ATL as he clanked his way to a 3-for-13 shooting night, resulting in a disastrous -23.4 impact score. Ultimately, frigid perimeter shooting turned a reliable two-way guard into a distinct offensive liability as the season waned.

Neemias Queta
Center Yr 4 83G (81S)
+6.5
10.1 pts
8.4 reb
1.6 ast
25.0 min

Stepping into a full-time starting role, Neemias Queta morphed into a glass-eating enforcer during this late-season stretch. He completely dismantled the interior on 03/01 vs PHI, pouring in 27 points and grabbing 17 rebounds to generate a staggering +35.6 Impact score. That massive rating stemmed directly from his relentless effort on the boards and highly efficient shot selection. Even when his scoring vanished, he found ways to tilt the floor. For example, he posted a +6.6 Impact on 03/22 vs MIN despite scoring just four points, creating value by anchoring the paint and inhaling ten rebounds. However, extreme offensive passivity could occasionally stall his team's momentum. Look at his 03/27 vs ATL performance, where a -9.1 Impact score revealed the hidden costs of taking only two shots in 28 minutes, which allowed the defense to completely ignore him as a scoring threat. When Queta actively hunts his own offense, he is a game-wrecking physical force.

Nikola Vučević
Center Yr 14 22G (1S)
+2.3
8.7 pts
6.0 reb
2.1 ast
20.5 min

Nikola Vučević’s midseason stretch was defined by a stark demotion to the second unit and wildly erratic efficiency. Thriving initially in his new reserve role, he completely dismantled the opposition on 02/27 vs BKN. He poured in 28 points and grabbed 11 rebounds in just 25 minutes, earning a massive +34.1 Impact by pairing flawless 3-for-3 perimeter shooting with relentless interior finishing. Even when his scoring volume plummeted, the veteran big man occasionally found ways to anchor the bench. During his first game off the pine on 02/06 vs MIA, he managed only 11 points but secured 12 boards and dished four assists, generating a +16.5 Impact through crucial second-chance hustle plays and crisp offensive facilitation. Relying on him every night remained a serious gamble, however. His shot selection completely unraveled on 04/07 vs CHA. He bricked all five of his three-point attempts and shot a dismal 1-for-10 overall, dragging down the offense to the tune of a -8.1 Impact.

Anfernee Simons
Guard Yr 7 49G
+2.2
14.2 pts
2.4 reb
2.4 ast
24.5 min

This midseason stretch was defined by a chaotic pendulum swing between brilliant bench scoring and inefficient struggles as a starter. Operating as a reserve on 01/16 vs MIA, Simons erupted for 39 points on 13-of-28 shooting. He generated a massive +28.2 Impact score that night simply by burying the defense under an avalanche of seven three-pointers. However, his aggressive shot selection frequently betrayed him. This flaw was glaringly obvious during a brutal 01/24 vs BKN matchup where he clanked his way to 10 points on 4-of-16 shooting, posting a dismal -12.1 Impact score due to his heavily wasted offensive possessions. A brief hot streak eventually earned him a starting nod in early February, though his overall efficiency immediately tanked against tougher defensive assignments. Yet, even when his scoring output dipped to a modest 15 points on a rough 5-of-15 shooting night on 02/07 vs DEN, he still managed to scrape out a +1.8 Impact score. Rather than forcing more bad looks, he kept the offense humming with six assists, creating enough non-scoring value as a distributor to completely offset his cold perimeter touch.

Sam Hauser
Forward Yr 4 86G (55S)
+0.1
9.1 pts
3.9 reb
1.4 ast
24.6 min

A brutal, prolonged shooting slump and bouts of extreme offensive passivity defined this late-season stretch for Sam Hauser. His floor-spacing utility completely vanished during the Mar 16 vs PHX matchup, where a severe lack of involvement and bricked perimeter looks cratered his impact to a staggering -14.8. He compounded these struggles by abandoning his usual role and forcing contested shots early in the clock during a dismal Mar 25 vs OKC outing that yielded a -11.1 impact score. Eventually, his quick-trigger confidence returned. He exploded for 24 points on 8-of-12 shooting from deep on Apr 10 vs NOP, yet his overall impact was a surprisingly modest +1.8. Despite warping the opposition with his lethal gravity, poor execution on the other end of the floor—resulting in a -4.2 defensive impact—severely dragged down his overall value. When Hauser simply moves off the ball and takes what the defense gives him, he is a lethal weapon, but forcing the issue turns him into a massive liability.

Luka Garza
Center Yr 4 76G (7S)
-1.2
7.7 pts
3.9 reb
0.9 ast
15.5 min

Luka Garza’s late-season stretch was defined by maddening inconsistency, oscillating violently between unplayable bench filler and explosive spot-starter. Take his performance on 04/01 vs MIA, where he poured in 12 points in just 15 minutes but still dragged the team down with a -5.3 Impact score. That negative mark stemmed from empty-calorie gunning, as he hoisted ten shots while completely ignoring his rebounding duties on the glass. Then there are the nights he simply vanishes. When given a massive runway on 03/10 vs SAS, Garza managed a brutal -14.6 Impact score by floating aimlessly for 24 minutes, grabbing zero rebounds and attempting just three shots. Yet, just when you write him off, he steps into the starting lineup on 04/12 vs ORL and completely bullies the opposition. He racked up 27 points and 12 rebounds in 38 minutes that night, posting a staggering +24.5 Impact score because he finally paired aggressive, efficient perimeter shooting with relentless interior board work.

Josh Minott
Forward Yr 3 33G (10S)
-1.6
5.8 pts
3.6 reb
1.0 ast
15.9 min

Josh Minott’s mid-season stretch was defined by a violent awakening, transforming him from a buried benchwarmer into a lethal rotational sparkplug. He completely flipped the script on 03/12 vs ATL, pouring in 24 points on blistering 4-of-7 shooting from deep to generate a staggering +23.6 Impact score. That elite mark stemmed directly from decisive shot selection and high-energy offensive execution. However, his overall value wasn't always strictly tied to his shooting volume. On 03/18 vs OKC, Minott managed just 9 points but still registered a strong +6.5 Impact score. He salvaged that quiet offensive night through sheer hustle and relentless defensive effort that constantly disrupted the opposing backcourt. Conversely, during the 03/25 vs GSW matchup, he tallied 8 points on an efficient 3-of-5 from the floor but posted an ugly -5.2 Impact score, as hidden costs like blown defensive assignments and poor positioning severely dragged down his effectiveness.

Jordan Walsh
Guard Yr 2 75G (25S)
-3.0
5.0 pts
3.9 reb
0.8 ast
17.3 min

Jordan Walsh’s late-season stretch was a frustrating exercise in offensive futility that occasionally gave way to gritty, blue-collar utility. He actually looked like a genuine two-way weapon on 02/11 vs CHI, pouring in 16 points and 6 rebounds on 7-of-12 shooting to generate a massive +14.9 Impact score. That brilliant performance was entirely driven by confident shot selection and relentless energy, but it quickly faded into a string of invisible bench shifts. When he was finally thrust into the starting lineup on 03/29 vs CHA, his jumper completely abandoned him. Despite scoring just 3 points on a brutal 1-for-7 from the floor, he somehow scraped together a +0.1 Impact score by grabbing 7 rebounds and grinding out stops over 34 exhausting minutes. By his 04/12 vs ORL start, however, the offensive limitations became too glaring to ignore. Even though he tied his second-highest scoring mark of the stretch with 9 points, he posted a dismal -4.0 Impact score because he needed nine field goal attempts to get there, clanking five threes and strangling the team's half-court spacing.

Baylor Scheierman
Guard Yr 1 84G (21S)
-3.6
5.4 pts
3.4 reb
1.4 ast
18.2 min

Baylor Scheierman spent this late-season stretch bouncing erratically between the starting five and the bench, struggling to establish a consistent rhythm. His volatile shot selection often punished his team, perfectly illustrated on 03/01 vs PHI. Despite reaching double figures with 12 points, he posted a dismal -5.6 Impact score because he forced the issue offensively and bricked seven of his nine attempts from deep. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to swing momentum without demanding the ball. During the 03/16 vs PHX matchup, a quiet eight-point night yielded a solid +3.4 Impact because he shot a flawless 3-for-3 from the floor while battling for five tough rebounds. He finally put every piece together to close the stretch on 04/12 vs ORL. Given a massive 39 minutes of run, he exploded for 30 points, seven assists, and seven boards, earning a staggering +20.0 Impact by blending high-volume perimeter shooting with relentless playmaking.

Ron Harper Jr.
Guard-Forward Yr 3 35G (4S)
-4.3
3.8 pts
1.5 reb
0.7 ast
9.8 min

Ron Harper Jr. spent almost this entire nine-game stretch rotting at the end of the bench before erupting out of absolutely nowhere in the finale. His early appearances were brutal, perfectly captured by a 03/14 vs WAS cameo where he logged zeroes across the board in two minutes. That invisible stint resulted in a disastrous -12.9 Impact score, as he merely took up floor space and failed to generate any positive momentum. He finally found a brief rhythm on 03/29 vs CHA, hitting all three of his shots for 7 points to earn a +2.5 Impact score through sheer offensive efficiency. Still, he immediately regressed to empty minutes over the next three contests. Then came a shocking spot start on 04/12 vs ORL that flipped the script entirely. Given 37 minutes of run, Harper poured in 27 points, 7 rebounds, and 4 assists, driving a massive +26.5 Impact score by hunting his shot aggressively from deep and crashing the glass. It was a jarring shift from total irrelevance to offensive focal point, leaving onlookers wondering where that aggressive wing had been hiding.

Charles Bassey
Center-Forward Yr 4 5G
-5.4
2.8 pts
1.2 reb
0.0 ast
3.4 min
Hugo González
Guard Yr 0 78G (3S)
-5.8
3.7 pts
3.2 reb
0.5 ast
14.1 min

This brutal late-season stretch was defined by absolute irrelevance for Hugo González, save for one shocking mirage of starting brilliance. Given a rare spot start on 03/02 vs MIL, he erupted for 18 points and 16 rebounds in 35 minutes. His massive +32.3 Impact score that night stemmed directly from relentless rebounding and high-energy hustle plays that completely disrupted Milwaukee's frontcourt. But the moment he returned to the second unit, his value evaporated. During a disastrous stint on 03/14 vs WAS, he logged zero points, zero rebounds, and zero assists in 10 minutes. That empty cardio session earned him a miserable -13.4 Impact, as his complete lack of aggression and inability to secure loose balls dragged the bench unit down. Things hit rock bottom on 03/22 vs MIN, where poor shot selection and an 0-for-3 shooting night resulted in a -15.1 Impact. Unless he is dominating the glass with starter-level minutes, González simply bleeds value as a hesitant reserve.

John Tonje
Guard Yr 0 6G
-6.0
2.5 pts
1.0 reb
0.3 ast
7.0 min
Xavier Tillman
Forward Yr 5 14G (1S)
-6.7
2.2 pts
1.8 reb
0.4 ast
8.0 min

Xavier Tillman spent this ten-game stretch anchored to the deep bench, serving as an afterthought rather than a viable rotation piece. Even when handed a rare 17 minutes on 04/03 vs IND, he managed just two points and generated a dismal -9.0 Impact score because his minimal rebounding and total lack of scoring aggression dragged down the unit. A brief cameo on 03/29 vs BOS yielded an even worse -11.3 Impact score in just four minutes. That disastrous rating stemmed from entirely empty cardio and a missed perimeter shot that killed the team's offensive spacing. He was functionally invisible. Tillman did manage to scrape together four points on perfect shooting during a two-minute stint on 04/05 vs MIN, but his -2.1 Impact score revealed the defensive apathy that accompanied those garbage-time buckets. When a big man cannot command offensive attention or protect the rim, his minutes become a severe liability.

Chris Boucher
Forward Yr 8 9G
-8.1
2.3 pts
2.0 reb
0.3 ast
10.5 min
Amari Williams
Forward-Center Yr 0 23G (2S)
-8.6
1.3 pts
1.8 reb
0.4 ast
6.4 min

Amari Williams spent this seven-game stretch stapled to the deepest, darkest end of the bench, existing strictly as a garbage-time placeholder. During invisible appearances like his three-minute stint on 03/06 vs DAL, he registered absolutely zero counting stats, resulting in a bleak -10.4 impact score. He finally received a genuine rotational opportunity on 03/30 vs ATL, logging 13 minutes and pulling down seven rebounds. That sudden burst of activity on the glass elevated his impact to a near-neutral -0.9, revealing his actual value as a rugged interior presence despite scoring just four points. Any momentum vanished completely on 04/12 vs ORL. Even though he hit his only field goal attempt in 10 minutes of action, Williams posted a disastrous -12.4 impact score. When a fringe rotation player fails to generate secondary stats or defensive resistance during an extended run, those hidden costs will ruthlessly sink their overall rating.

Max Shulga
Guard Yr 0 13G (1S)
-9.3
0.8 pts
0.5 reb
0.2 ast
3.2 min
Dalano Banton
Forward Yr 4 6G
-10.5
1.3 pts
0.7 reb
1.5 ast
9.3 min
L
vs PHI PHI
109 PHI BOS 100
PHI vs PHI
100 109
Sat, May 2
Playoffs Analysis
-9
L
@ PHI PHI
93 BOS PHI 106
PHI @ PHI
93 106
Thu, Apr 30
Playoffs Analysis
-13
L
vs PHI PHI
113 PHI BOS 97
PHI vs PHI
97 113
Tue, Apr 28
Playoffs Analysis
-16
W
@ PHI PHI
128 BOS PHI 96
PHI @ PHI
128 96
Sun, Apr 26
Playoffs Analysis
+32
W
@ PHI PHI
108 BOS PHI 100
PHI @ PHI
108 100
Fri, Apr 24
Playoffs Analysis
+8
L
vs PHI PHI
111 PHI BOS 97
PHI vs PHI
97 111
Tue, Apr 21
Playoffs Analysis
-14
W
vs PHI PHI
91 PHI BOS 123
PHI vs PHI
123 91
Sun, Apr 19
Playoffs Analysis
+32
W
vs ORL ORL
108 ORL BOS 113
ORL vs ORL
113 108
Sun, Apr 12
Analysis
+5
W
vs NOP NOP
118 NOP BOS 144
NOP vs NOP
144 118
Fri, Apr 10
Analysis
+26
L
@ NYK NYK
106 BOS NYK 112
NYK @ NYK
106 112
Thu, Apr 9
Analysis
-6
W
vs CHA CHA
102 CHA BOS 113
CHA vs CHA
113 102
Tue, Apr 7
Analysis
+11
W
vs TOR TOR
101 TOR BOS 115
TOR vs TOR
115 101
Sun, Apr 5
Analysis
+14
W
@ MIL MIL
133 BOS MIL 101
MIL @ MIL
133 101
Fri, Apr 3
Analysis
+32
W
@ MIA MIA
147 BOS MIA 129
MIA @ MIA
147 129
Wed, Apr 1
Analysis
+18
L
@ ATL ATL
102 BOS ATL 112
ATL @ ATL
102 112
Mon, Mar 30
Analysis
-10
W
@ CHA CHA
114 BOS CHA 99
CHA @ CHA
114 99
Sun, Mar 29
Analysis
+15
W
vs ATL ATL
102 ATL BOS 109
ATL vs ATL
109 102
Fri, Mar 27
Analysis
+7
W
vs OKC OKC
109 OKC BOS 119
OKC vs OKC
119 109
Wed, Mar 25
Analysis
+10
L
vs MIN MIN
102 MIN BOS 92
MIN vs MIN
92 102
Sun, Mar 22
Analysis
-10
W
@ MEM MEM
117 BOS MEM 112
MEM @ MEM
117 112
Fri, Mar 20
Analysis
+5
W
vs GSW GSW
99 GSW BOS 120
GSW vs GSW
120 99
Wed, Mar 18
Analysis
+21
W
vs PHX PHX
112 PHX BOS 120
PHX vs PHX
120 112
Mon, Mar 16
Analysis
+8
W
vs WAS WAS
100 WAS BOS 111
WAS vs WAS
111 100
Sat, Mar 14
Analysis
+11
L
@ OKC OKC
102 BOS OKC 104
OKC @ OKC
102 104
Thu, Mar 12
Analysis
-2
L
@ SAS SAS
116 BOS SAS 125
SAS @ SAS
116 125
Tue, Mar 10
Analysis
-9
W
@ CLE CLE
109 BOS CLE 98
CLE @ CLE
109 98
Sun, Mar 8
Analysis
+11
W
vs DAL DAL
100 DAL BOS 120
DAL vs DAL
120 100
Fri, Mar 6
Analysis
+20
L
vs CHA CHA
118 CHA BOS 89
CHA vs CHA
89 118
Wed, Mar 4
Analysis
-29
W
@ MIL MIL
108 BOS MIL 81
MIL @ MIL
108 81
Mon, Mar 2
Analysis
+27
W
vs PHI PHI
98 PHI BOS 114
PHI vs PHI
114 98
Sun, Mar 1
Analysis
+16
W
vs BKN BKN
111 BKN BOS 148
BKN vs BKN
148 111
Fri, Feb 27
Analysis
+37
L
@ DEN DEN
84 BOS DEN 103
DEN @ DEN
84 103
Wed, Feb 25
Analysis
-19
W
@ PHX PHX
97 BOS PHX 81
PHX @ PHX
97 81
Tue, Feb 24
Analysis
+16
W
@ LAL LAL
111 BOS LAL 89
LAL @ LAL
111 89
Sun, Feb 22
Analysis
+22
W
@ GSW GSW
121 BOS GSW 110
GSW @ GSW
121 110
Thu, Feb 19
Analysis
+11
W
vs CHI CHI
105 CHI BOS 124
CHI vs CHI
124 105
Wed, Feb 11
Analysis
+19
L
vs NYK NYK
111 NYK BOS 89
NYK vs NYK
89 111
Sun, Feb 8
Analysis
-22
W
vs MIA MIA
96 MIA BOS 98
MIA vs MIA
98 96
Fri, Feb 6
Analysis
+2
W
@ HOU HOU
114 BOS HOU 93
HOU @ HOU
114 93
Wed, Feb 4
Analysis
+21
W
@ DAL DAL
110 BOS DAL 100
DAL @ DAL
110 100
Tue, Feb 3
Analysis
+10
W
vs MIL MIL
79 MIL BOS 107
MIL vs MIL
107 79
Sun, Feb 1
Analysis
+28
W
vs SAC SAC
93 SAC BOS 112
SAC vs SAC
112 93
Fri, Jan 30
Analysis
+19
L
vs ATL ATL
117 ATL BOS 106
ATL vs ATL
106 117
Wed, Jan 28
Analysis
-11
W
vs POR POR
94 POR BOS 102
POR vs POR
102 94
Tue, Jan 27
Analysis
+8
L
@ CHI CHI
111 BOS CHI 114
CHI @ CHI
111 114
Sun, Jan 25
Analysis
-3
W
@ BKN BKN
130 BOS BKN 126
BKN @ BKN
130 126
Sat, Jan 24
Analysis
+4
W
vs IND IND
104 IND BOS 119
IND vs IND
119 104
Thu, Jan 22
Analysis
+15
L
@ DET DET
103 BOS DET 104
DET @ DET
103 104
Tue, Jan 20
Analysis
-1
W
@ ATL ATL
132 BOS ATL 106
ATL @ ATL
132 106
Sun, Jan 18
Analysis
+26
W
@ MIA MIA
119 BOS MIA 114
MIA @ MIA
119 114
Fri, Jan 16
Analysis
+5
L
@ IND IND
96 BOS IND 98
IND @ IND
96 98
Tue, Jan 13
Analysis
-2
L
vs SAS SAS
100 SAS BOS 95
SAS vs SAS
95 100
Sun, Jan 11
Analysis
-5
W
vs TOR TOR
117 TOR BOS 125
TOR vs TOR
125 117
Sat, Jan 10
Analysis
+8
L
vs DEN DEN
114 DEN BOS 110
DEN vs DEN
110 114
Thu, Jan 8
Analysis
-4
W
vs CHI CHI
101 CHI BOS 115
CHI vs CHI
115 101
Tue, Jan 6
Analysis
+14
W
@ LAC LAC
146 BOS LAC 115
LAC @ LAC
146 115
Sun, Jan 4
Analysis
+31
W
@ SAC SAC
120 BOS SAC 106
SAC @ SAC
120 106
Fri, Jan 2
Analysis
+14
W
@ UTA UTA
129 BOS UTA 119
UTA @ UTA
129 119
Wed, Dec 31
Analysis
+10
L
@ POR POR
108 BOS POR 114
POR @ POR
108 114
Sun, Dec 28
Analysis
-6
W
@ IND IND
140 BOS IND 122
IND @ IND
140 122
Sat, Dec 27
Analysis
+18
W
vs IND IND
95 IND BOS 103
IND vs IND
103 95
Tue, Dec 23
Analysis
+8
W
@ TOR TOR
112 BOS TOR 96
TOR @ TOR
112 96
Sun, Dec 21
Analysis
+16
W
vs MIA MIA
116 MIA BOS 129
MIA vs MIA
129 116
Sat, Dec 20
Analysis
+13
L
vs DET DET
112 DET BOS 105
DET vs DET
105 112
Tue, Dec 16
Analysis
-7
L
@ MIL MIL
101 BOS MIL 116
MIL @ MIL
101 116
Fri, Dec 12
Analysis
-15
W
@ TOR TOR
121 BOS TOR 113
TOR @ TOR
121 113
Sun, Dec 7
Analysis
+8
W
vs LAL LAL
105 LAL BOS 126
LAL vs LAL
126 105
Sat, Dec 6
Analysis
+21
W
@ WAS WAS
146 BOS WAS 101
WAS @ WAS
146 101
Fri, Dec 5
Analysis
+45
W
vs NYK NYK
117 NYK BOS 123
NYK vs NYK
123 117
Wed, Dec 3
Analysis
+6
W
@ CLE CLE
117 BOS CLE 115
CLE @ CLE
117 115
Sun, Nov 30
Analysis
+2
L
@ MIN MIN
115 BOS MIN 119
MIN @ MIN
115 119
Sat, Nov 29
Analysis
-4
W
vs DET DET
114 DET BOS 117
DET vs DET
117 114
Wed, Nov 26
Analysis
+3
W
vs ORL ORL
129 ORL BOS 138
ORL vs ORL
138 129
Sun, Nov 23
Analysis
+9
L
vs BKN BKN
113 BKN BOS 105
BKN vs BKN
105 113
Sat, Nov 22
Analysis
-8
W
@ BKN BKN
113 BOS BKN 99
BKN @ BKN
113 99
Wed, Nov 19
Analysis
+14
W
vs LAC LAC
118 LAC BOS 121
LAC vs LAC
121 118
Sun, Nov 16
Analysis
+3
W
vs MEM MEM
95 MEM BOS 131
MEM vs MEM
131 95
Thu, Nov 13
Analysis
+36
L
@ PHI PHI
100 BOS PHI 102
PHI @ PHI
100 102
Wed, Nov 12
Analysis
-2
W
@ ORL ORL
111 BOS ORL 107
ORL @ ORL
111 107
Sun, Nov 9
Analysis
+4
L
@ ORL ORL
110 BOS ORL 123
ORL @ ORL
110 123
Sat, Nov 8
Analysis
-13
W
vs WAS WAS
107 WAS BOS 136
WAS vs WAS
136 107
Thu, Nov 6
Analysis
+29
L
vs UTA UTA
105 UTA BOS 103
UTA vs UTA
103 105
Tue, Nov 4
Analysis
-2
L
vs HOU HOU
128 HOU BOS 101
HOU vs HOU
101 128
Sun, Nov 2
Analysis
-27
W
@ PHI PHI
109 BOS PHI 108
PHI @ PHI
109 108
Fri, Oct 31
Analysis
+1
W
vs CLE CLE
105 CLE BOS 125
CLE vs CLE
125 105
Wed, Oct 29
Analysis
+20
W
@ NOP NOP
122 BOS NOP 90
NOP @ NOP
122 90
Mon, Oct 27
Analysis
+32
L
@ DET DET
113 BOS DET 119
DET @ DET
113 119
Sun, Oct 26
Analysis
-6
L
@ NYK NYK
95 BOS NYK 105
NYK @ NYK
95 105
Fri, Oct 24
Analysis
-10
L
vs PHI PHI
117 PHI BOS 116
PHI vs PHI
116 117
Wed, Oct 22
Analysis
-1