The celtics vs houston rockets match player stats from February 5, 2026, reveal how Boston Celtics secured a convincing 114-93 victory over the Houston Rockets at Toyota Center in Houston, Texas. Boston combined strong rebounding, balanced scoring, accurate free throws, and an outstanding third-quarter performance to take control of the game. Derrick White led all scorers with 28 points, while Payton Pritchard added 27 points off the bench. Neemias Queta also delivered a dominant performance with 19 rebounds and five blocks.

Houston entered the matchup with a strong home record, but Boston’s ability to win possessions and convert important opportunities made the difference. Kevin Durant led the Rockets with 15 points, while Alperen Sengun collected nine rebounds. Despite Houston recording more steals, the team struggled to match Boston’s production on the boards and at the free-throw line.

This game also completed a split in the 2025-26 regular-season series. Houston won the first meeting 128-101 on November 2, 2025, before Boston responded with a 21-point victory in February. The following breakdown examines the final score, individual player performances, team statistics, quarter-by-quarter scoring, and the main reasons Boston controlled the contest.

Table of Contents

Celtics vs Houston Rockets Match Player Stats: Final Score and Game Summary

The Boston Celtics defeated the Houston Rockets 114-93 in a game that became increasingly one-sided during the third quarter. Boston scored 36 points in that period while limiting Houston to 21, creating a substantial advantage that the Rockets could not overcome.

Match Information

Game Detail	Information
Matchup	Boston Celtics vs. Houston Rockets
Date	February 5, 2026
Final Score	Celtics 114, Rockets 93
Venue	Toyota Center
Location	Houston, Texas
Attendance	18,055
Game Status	Final
Game ID	401810583
Season Series	Tied 1-1
Boston’s Listed Record	33-18
Houston’s Listed Record	31-18

Boston’s victory was built on more than individual scoring. The Celtics secured 57 rebounds, distributed 26 assists, and made 19 three-pointers. Houston collected only 38 rebounds and finished with 16 assists.

The 21-point margin reflected a clear difference in possession control and scoring efficiency at the free-throw line. Boston also received valuable production from its reserves, especially Pritchard, whose 27 points gave the team another major scoring option alongside White.

For Houston, Durant remained the leading scorer, but no Rockets player reached 20 points. The team’s 11 made three-pointers were respectable, yet Boston made eight more shots from beyond the arc.

Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Breakdown

The scoring pattern shows how Boston gradually established control before delivering its most decisive performance after halftime.

Quarter	Boston Celtics	Houston Rockets	Quarter Winner
First Quarter	18	17	Celtics
Second Quarter	31	25	Celtics
Third Quarter	36	21	Celtics
Fourth Quarter	29	30	Rockets
Final Score	114	93	Celtics

First Quarter: Boston Takes a Narrow Lead

Boston opened the game with an 18-17 advantage. The one-point margin indicated a competitive opening period, with neither team establishing a significant scoring gap.

The Celtics began building their advantage through a combination of inside production and perimeter opportunities. However, the Rockets stayed close enough to keep the game within reach.

At this stage, the matchup remained open. A single successful offensive stretch could have changed the direction of the contest.

Second Quarter: Celtics Extend Their Advantage

Boston scored 31 points in the second quarter, compared with Houston’s 25. That six-point advantage increased the Celtics’ lead to seven points at halftime.

The improvement in Boston’s scoring established a more comfortable position. The Celtics also benefited from having multiple players capable of contributing offensively rather than depending on a single scorer.

Houston remained competitive in the period but could not match Boston’s scoring output. The difference was meaningful because Boston entered the second half with room to extend its advantage without needing to recover from a deficit.

Third Quarter: The Decisive Stretch

The third quarter was the defining period of the game. Boston outscored Houston 36-21, adding 15 points to its advantage during those 12 minutes.

This was the strongest statistical turning point in the contest. Boston’s offense generated its highest-scoring quarter, while Houston produced its lowest.

The Celtics’ ability to combine perimeter scoring with rebounding helped them sustain their pressure. Their overall advantage on the boards also gave them opportunities to recover missed shots and maintain possession.

Houston could not generate a similar scoring response. By the end of the third quarter, Boston had built a substantial lead that reduced the Rockets’ margin for error.

Fourth Quarter: Houston Wins the Period, but Boston Wins the Game

Houston scored 30 points in the fourth quarter, narrowly outperforming Boston’s 29. However, the improvement arrived too late to change the result.

The Rockets won the period by one point, but Boston had already established enough separation through the first three quarters.

This distinction matters when evaluating the final score. Houston’s fourth-quarter scoring showed that the team could still produce offense, but a strong closing period could not erase the third-quarter deficit.

The Boston finished with a 114-93 victory after controlling the most important stretch of the game.

Boston Celtics Player Stats

<span style=”font-weight: 400;”>Boston received standout performances from Derrick White, Payton Pritchard, and Neemias Queta. Their contributions covered three different areas: perimeter scoring, bench production, and interior dominance.

The following table summarizes the player statistics provided for this game.

Celtics Player Box Score

Player	Points	Rebounds	Assists	Plus/Minus
Derrick White	28	1	8	+15
Payton Pritchard	27	3	7	+17
Luka Garza	19	6	2	+16
Baylor Scheierman	15	10	4	+7
Ron Harper Jr.	11	9	3	+16
Neemias Queta	10	19	2	+22
Jordan Walsh	2	4	0	+7
Hugo Gonzalez	2	3	0	+3
Josh Minott	0	2	0	+4
Xavier Tillman	0	0	0	-1
Max Shulga	0	0	0	-1

Additional availability information: Nikola Vucevic was listed as a DNP, Sam Hauser was listed as a DNP because of a right thumb injury, and Jaylen Brown was listed as a DNP for left hamstring injury management. DNP means did not play.

Individual box-score figures should be read alongside team totals. Players contribute in different ways, and points alone do not capture rebounding, passing, defense, or possession control.

Derrick White: Boston’s Leading Scorer

Derrick White led all players with 28 points and eight assists. He also finished with a plus/minus of +15, indicating that Boston outscored Houston by 15 points during his time on the court.

White’s scoring gave the Celtics a reliable offensive focal point. His eight assists also demonstrated his importance as a playmaker, helping teammates become involved rather than forcing the offense to depend entirely on individual shots.

The combination of 28 points and eight assists was particularly valuable because Boston received another major scoring performance from Pritchard. Houston therefore had to account for multiple threats instead of focusing all its defensive attention on White.

White’s contribution was not limited to scoring. His passing helped connect individual performances to Boston’s broader offensive output.

Payton Pritchard: A Major Bench Scoring Performance

Pritchard scored 27 points, collected three rebounds, and recorded seven assists. He made five three-pointers and posted a +17 plus/minus.

His performance was one of the most important features of Boston’s victory. A reserve scoring 27 points provides a team with substantial offensive production without requiring every point to come from its starting lineup.

Pritchard’s seven assists were also significant. They showed that his impact extended beyond shooting, allowing him to contribute to both scoring and ball movement.

Boston’s combined production from White and Pritchard reached 55 points. That total represented a major share of the Celtics’ 114 points and gave Houston two high-output players to contain.

Pritchard’s performance also highlights why bench scoring matters in individual game analysis. A team can gain an advantage when its reserves maintain or increase offensive production instead of allowing the opposing team to close the gap.

Neemias Queta: Dominance on the Boards

Neemias Queta recorded 10 points, 19 rebounds, two assists, two steals, and five blocks. His +22 plus/minus was the highest positive figure among the listed players.

Queta’s 19 rebounds were the most important individual rebounding figure in the game. His performance helped Boston establish a 57-38 advantage in total rebounds.

Rebounding influences a game in several ways. Defensive rebounds end opposing possessions, while offensive rebounds can create additional scoring chances after missed shots. Queta’s presence gave Boston a strong interior option in both areas.

His five blocks also demonstrated a major defensive contribution. Blocks can discourage attempts near the basket and force offensive players to change their decisions.

Queta’s statistical line therefore went well beyond his 10 points. He contributed through rebounding, rim protection, and defensive activity, making him one of Boston’s most influential players.

Luka Garza: Efficient Scoring Support

Luka Garza finished with 19 points, six rebounds, two assists, two steals, and a +16 plus/minus.

His scoring gave Boston another productive contributor alongside White and Pritchard. Garza’s six rebounds also supported the team’s broader advantage on the boards.

The Celtics did not need every player to produce a career-high scoring total. Instead, several players contributed enough to make the offense difficult to contain.

Garza’s 19 points were especially valuable in a game where Boston’s offensive output was spread across the lineup.

Baylor Scheierman and Ron Harper Jr.: Contributions Across the Box Score

Baylor Scheierman recorded 15 points, 10 rebounds, and four assists. His double-digit rebounding total provided additional support for Boston’s control of the glass.

Ron Harper Jr. added 11 points, nine rebounds, and three assists. His nine rebounds were close to a double-double alongside his 11 points.

Together, Scheierman and Harper provided scoring and rebounding that reduced the burden on Boston’s leading scorers. Their contributions also helped explain why the Celtics could maintain an advantage across multiple statistical categories.

Rather than relying exclusively on one offensive option, Boston received useful production from several positions.

Boston’s Bench and Supporting Rotation

Beyond Pritchard, Boston’s listed reserves contributed smaller totals. Jordan Walsh scored two points and collected four rebounds, while Hugo Gonzalez recorded two points and three rebounds.

Josh Minott finished without scoring but collected two rebounds and recorded a block. Xavier Tillman and Max Shulga were listed without points, rebounds, or assists in the supplied data.

These numbers should not be interpreted in isolation. Minutes played, defensive assignments, and specific possession details would be needed to evaluate each reserve’s complete performance.

The most important conclusion is that Boston received a major scoring contribution from Pritchard while its starting group supplied additional points, rebounds, and playmaking.

Houston Rockets Player Stats

Houston’s leading scorer was Kevin Durant with 15 points. Alperen Sengun led the Rockets in rebounding with nine, while Amen Thompson recorded four assists.

The Rockets had several players contributing between nine and 15 points, but the available figures show no Houston player matching White’s 28 points or Pritchard’s 27.

Rockets Player Box Score

Player	Points	Rebounds	Assists	Plus/Minus
Kevin Durant	15	5	1	-22
Jabari Smith Jr.	13	4	3	-29
Alperen Sengun	13	9	3	-22
Amen Thompson	11	4	4	-21
Tari Eason	10	4	1	-9
Aaron Holiday	9	2	2	+5
Reed Sheppard	9	2	0	-12
Clint Capela	4	5	0	+4
Jeff Green	3	0	0	+7
Isaiah Crawford	2	1	0	+7
Josh Okogie	2	1	0	-9
JD Davison	2	1	2	+6
Jae’Sean Tate	0	0	0	-10

The Rockets’ statistical profile was mixed. They recorded 10 steals compared with Boston’s six and committed nine turnovers compared with Boston’s 13.

Those figures indicate that Houston created defensive disruption and protected the ball relatively well. However, the team could not translate those advantages into enough total scoring to stay competitive.

The biggest problems appeared in rebounding, free-throw conversion, and the third-quarter scoring gap.

Kevin Durant: Houston’s Leading Scorer

Durant finished with 15 points, five rebounds, one assist, two steals, one block, and a -22 plus/minus.

He led Houston in scoring, but Boston limited the Rockets’ overall offensive output to 93 points. Durant’s total was respectable as an individual contribution, yet it was not enough to match Boston’s combined production from White and Pritchard.

Durant also recorded defensive contributions through steals and a block. However, his plus/minus shows that Houston was outscored by 22 points while he was on the court.

Plus/minus does not establish that one player caused a team’s defeat. It reflects the scoring difference during that player’s time on the floor and must be considered alongside teammates, rotations, and game context.

Alperen Sengun: Rebounding and Interior Production

Sengun recorded 13 points, nine rebounds, three assists, two steals, one block, and three turnovers.

His nine rebounds led Houston, while his three assists showed that he contributed to the team’s passing game as well as its scoring.

However, Sengun’s rebounding total fell short of Queta’s 19. This difference formed part of Boston’s wider advantage in controlling missed shots and securing possessions.

Sengun’s three turnovers also represented lost opportunities for Houston. Turnovers are not always equally costly, but they can prevent a team from attempting a shot and may give the opposition a chance to score in transition.

His overall performance included useful contributions, although the team result showed that Houston needed more production across several statistical categories.

Jabari Smith Jr.: A Difficult Plus/Minus Result

Smith finished with 13 points, four rebounds, three assists, three made three-pointers, and a -29 plus/minus.

His three made three-pointers were a positive feature of his offensive performance. However, the -29 figure was the lowest plus/minus among the listed players.

This does not mean Smith personally caused a 29-point defeat. Plus/minus measures the team’s scoring difference during his time on the floor, not an individual rating of every offensive or defensive action.

His numbers illustrate why box scores require context. A player can contribute points and perimeter shooting while still being part of lineups that struggle against the opposition.

Amen Thompson and Tari Eason: Supporting Contributions

Thompson recorded 11 points, four rebounds, four assists, one steal, and three turnovers. His four assists led Houston, showing that he helped create opportunities for teammates.

Eason added 10 points, four rebounds, one assist, and two made three-pointers. His scoring provided another contribution from the starting lineup.

Neither player reached the scoring level produced by Boston’s leading duo. Houston needed a more productive offensive stretch from its supporting players to offset Boston’s rebounding and shooting advantages.

Houston’s Bench Production

Aaron Holiday and Reed Sheppard each scored nine points. Holiday also recorded two assists and one steal, while Sheppard made three three-pointers.

Clint Capela contributed four points and five rebounds. Jeff Green scored three points, while Isaiah Crawford, Josh Okogie, and JD Davison each recorded two points.

These contributions helped Houston distribute its scoring, but the overall output remained limited. The Rockets finished with 93 points, 21 fewer than Boston.

Houston’s bench did not produce a scorer comparable to Pritchard on this occasion. That difference was important because Boston’s reserves supplied a major portion of the offensive pressure.

Team Statistics Comparison

The team numbers offer the clearest explanation of the result. Boston did not lead every category, but it held substantial advantages in rebounding, assists, made field goals, and free-throw percentage.

Statistic	Boston Celtics	Houston Rockets
Points	114	93
Field Goals Made/Attempted	39/90	34/82
Field Goal Percentage	43%	41%
Three-Pointers Made/Attempted	19/51	11/30
Three-Point Percentage	37%	37%
Free Throws Made/Attempted	17/20	14/22
Free-Throw Percentage	85%	64%
Total Rebounds	57	38
Offensive Rebounds	20	12
Defensive Rebounds	37	26
Assists	26	16
Turnovers	13	9
Steals	6	10
Blocks	6	5
Personal Fouls	18	17

Rebounding: Boston’s Biggest Statistical Advantage

Boston collected 57 rebounds, compared with Houston’s 38. The 19-rebound difference was the largest clear statistical gap between the teams.

The Celtics recorded 20 offensive rebounds and 37 defensive rebounds. Houston finished with 12 offensive rebounds and 26 defensive rebounds.

This advantage mattered because rebounds determine who controls the next possession after a missed shot. Defensive rebounds allow a team to end an opponent’s attack, while offensive rebounds provide another opportunity to score.

Boston’s eight-rebound advantage on the offensive glass also gave the Celtics additional chances to extend possessions. Those opportunities can be particularly valuable when a team is not making every initial attempt.

Queta’s 19 rebounds were central to this result, but the team advantage was not limited to one player. Scheierman collected 10 rebounds, Harper added nine, and Garza recorded six.

Houston’s leading rebounder, Sengun, finished with nine. His contribution was useful, but Boston had several players helping to secure the ball.

Three-Point Shooting: Similar Accuracy, Different Volume

Both teams shot 37% from three-point range. However, Boston made 19 three-pointers on 51 attempts, while Houston made 11 on 30 attempts.

The eight additional made three-pointers were a major scoring difference. At three points each, those extra makes represented 24 points of additional scoring from the perimeter compared with Houston’s total.

The comparison needs context. Boston also attempted 21 more three-pointers, so the higher number of makes reflected greater shooting volume rather than a better reported percentage.

Boston’s perimeter strategy generated more total points from beyond the arc. Houston’s 11 made threes were not enough to keep pace with the Celtics’ output.

Free Throws: Boston Converted More Consistently

Boston made 17 of 20 free throws, an 85% conversion rate. Houston made 14 of 22, finishing at 64%.

Houston attempted two more free throws but made three fewer. That difference gave Boston a three-point advantage in made free throws.

Free-throw accuracy can have a meaningful effect on a game because these attempts offer opportunities to score without making a field goal. Missed free throws can waste chances to add points, particularly when a team is trying to recover from a deficit.

Boston’s performance at the line was considerably stronger. Houston’s 64% conversion rate limited the value of its 22 attempts.

Assists: Boston Created More Scoring Connections

Boston recorded 26 assists, compared with Houston’s 16. The 10-assist difference suggests that the Celtics recorded substantially more assisted field goals.

White led Boston with eight assists, followed by Pritchard with seven. Their combined 15 assists accounted for a large portion of the team’s total.

Houston’s leading assist figure was Thompson’s four. Sengun and Smith each recorded three, while Holiday added two.

Assists alone cannot measure every aspect of offensive quality, but the difference supports the view that Boston generated more connected scoring opportunities. The Celtics combined individual scoring with more extensive passing contributions.

Turnovers and Steals: Houston Won These Categories

Houston committed nine turnovers, four fewer than Boston’s 13. The Rockets also recorded 10 steals, compared with Boston’s six.

These figures were clear statistical positives for Houston. The team disrupted more possessions and gave the ball away less frequently.

However, those advantages did not overcome the larger gaps elsewhere. Houston’s rebounding deficit, lower free-throw percentage, and third-quarter scoring problems outweighed its turnover and steals advantages.

This is an important lesson in reading basketball statistics. Winning individual categories does not guarantee a victory if the opponent holds larger advantages in other areas.

Field-Goal Production: Boston Made More Shots

Boston made 39 of 90 field-goal attempts, while Houston made 34 of 82. The reported shooting percentages were 43% and 41%, respectively.

The Celtics made five more field goals overall. Their additional production from three-point range contributed substantially to the scoring difference.

Both teams missed many attempts, which makes the rebounding figures especially relevant. Boston’s 20 offensive rebounds created additional opportunities after missed shots and supported its higher scoring total.

The combination of more made shots, stronger rebounding, and better free-throw accuracy helped Boston build its 21-point advantage.

Why the Boston Celtics Won

Boston’s 114-93 victory was the result of several advantages working together. The Celtics were not simply more successful because of one exceptional scorer. They controlled the boards, received substantial production from their bench, and created a decisive scoring advantage after halftime.

Four factors explain the result most clearly.

1. Boston Controlled Possessions Through Rebounding

The 57-38 rebounding advantage gave Boston a clear edge in possession control. The Celtics collected 20 offensive rebounds, eight more than Houston’s 12.

Offensive rebounds can be particularly important when a team misses a field-goal attempt. Instead of allowing the defense to end the possession, an offensive rebound creates another chance to score.

Boston’s rebounding advantage also helped reduce Houston’s opportunities to build momentum through defensive stops and transition attacks.

Queta’s 19 rebounds were the leading individual contribution. However, the Celtics also received substantial support from Scheierman, Harper, and Garza.

This distribution made Boston’s rebounding strength more difficult to counter. Houston could not focus on containing one rebounder and expect the problem to disappear.

2. The Celtics Had Two High-Scoring Offensive Options

White scored 28 points, while Pritchard added 27. Together, they produced 55 points, accounting for nearly half of Boston’s total.

This scoring combination created a difficult defensive challenge for Houston. Limiting White alone would not have been sufficient when Pritchard was also producing at a high level.

White contributed eight assists, and Pritchard added seven. Their combined scoring and playmaking allowed them to influence the game in different ways.

The distinction between these performances is important. White led the starting group in scoring, while Pritchard supplied exceptional production from the bench.

Boston therefore received significant contributions from different parts of its rotation. This reduced the pressure on any single player to carry the offense for the entire game.

3. Boston Capitalized on Three-Point Opportunities

Boston and Houston both shot 37% from three-point range, but the Celtics made 19 threes compared with Houston’s 11.

The difference came from the number of successful attempts rather than the reported percentage.

Boston attempted 51 three-pointers, while Houston attempted 30. The Celtics’ higher volume helped them generate more perimeter points and maintain offensive pressure.

However, a higher attempt total is not automatically evidence of better shot selection. To evaluate the quality of those attempts, a complete analysis would need information about defensive pressure, shot locations, and the circumstances of each possession.

The available numbers establish that Boston made more threes. They do not, by themselves, explain every decision that produced those opportunities.

4. The Third Quarter Created Separation

Boston outscored Houston 36-21 in the third quarter. This 15-point difference was the largest quarter-level scoring gap in the game.

The Celtics entered halftime with a seven-point lead and then increased their advantage considerably after the break.

That sequence changed the demands on Houston’s offense. Once a team falls behind by a substantial margin, it may need to take greater risks to recover. Those risks can make it more difficult to maintain consistent offensive execution.

Houston won the fourth quarter 30-29, but the one-point improvement was insufficient to reverse the result.

The third quarter therefore provides the clearest explanation of when Boston turned a competitive game into a comfortable victory.

Why the Houston Rockets Lost

Houston’s defeat cannot be explained by a lack of effort in every statistical category. The Rockets recorded more steals and fewer turnovers than Boston.

The problem was that those advantages did not translate into enough points or rebounds to compete with the Celtics over four quarters.

Limited Scoring at the Top of the Lineup

Durant led Houston with 15 points. Smith and Sengun each scored 13, while Thompson recorded 11 and Eason added 10.

Five starters reached double figures, which indicates that the Rockets had several contributing scorers. However, none matched the production of White or Pritchard.

The distinction is between having several players contribute and having enough total scoring to match the opposition. Houston distributed its points across the lineup but finished with only 93.

Boston’s leading pair combined for 55 points. Houston’s leading scorer had 15, leaving the Rockets without a comparable individual scoring total.

The Rebounding Gap Limited Houston’s Opportunities

Houston collected 38 rebounds, compared with Boston’s 57. This 19-rebound deficit was difficult to overcome.

The Rockets secured 12 offensive rebounds and 26 defensive rebounds. Boston finished ahead in both categories.

A team can protect the ball well and still lose control of possessions through poor rebounding. Houston’s nine turnovers were fewer than Boston’s 13, but that advantage could not compensate for the number of rebounds it surrendered.

The available statistics do not establish how many points came directly from second-chance opportunities. Nevertheless, the rebounding gap demonstrates that Boston recovered substantially more missed shots.

Free-Throw Accuracy Was Another Problem

Houston made 14 of 22 free throws, while Boston converted 17 of 20.

The Rockets missed eight free throws, compared with Boston’s three. Although the teams attempted a similar number, Boston converted a much higher percentage.

A 64% free-throw rate can become costly when a team is trying to narrow a deficit. These attempts are opportunities to score without needing another field-goal possession.

Houston’s missed free throws did not independently determine the outcome, but they reduced the points the Rockets could have added from the line.

The Third-Quarter Offense Fell Behind

Houston scored only 21 points in the third quarter, its lowest-scoring period of the game. Boston produced 36 during the same stretch.

The 15-point difference was larger than the final margin in any other individual quarter. It placed Houston in a difficult position heading into the fourth.

The Rockets improved their scoring afterward, but they needed a much stronger response during the third quarter to prevent Boston from establishing that separation.

Bench Production: Celtics vs Rockets

Bench scoring is an important part of basketball analysis because reserves can maintain offensive output when starters rest. In this matchup, the most striking reserve performance belonged to Pritchard.

Bench Player	Team	Points	Rebounds	Assists
Payton Pritchard	Celtics	27	3	7
Aaron Holiday	Rockets	9	2	2
Reed Sheppard	Rockets	9	2	0
Clint Capela	Rockets	4	5	0
Jeff Green	Rockets	3	0	0
Jordan Walsh	Celtics	2	4	0
Hugo Gonzalez	Celtics	2	3	0
Isaiah Crawford	Rockets	2	1	0
Josh Okogie	Rockets	2	1	0
JD Davison	Rockets	2	1	2
Josh Minott	Celtics	0	2	0
Xavier Tillman	Celtics	0	0	0
Max Shulga	Celtics	0	0	0
Jae’Sean Tate	Rockets	0	0	0

Pritchard’s 27 points exceeded the scoring total of every Houston player except no one, because Durant’s 15 points were Houston’s highest individual figure. Pritchard also finished with seven assists, making his contribution valuable in both scoring and playmaking.

Holiday and Sheppard each supplied nine points for Houston. Their performances helped the Rockets maintain some scoring support from the bench, but neither produced the same volume as Pritchard.

It is important to distinguish a standout individual performance from a complete bench comparison. The listed reserves played different roles, and the available data does not provide every player’s minutes or shot attempts. Those details would be necessary for a more precise assessment of scoring efficiency.

Even with that limitation, Pritchard’s 27 points stand out as a major factor in Boston’s offensive advantage.

Understanding Plus/Minus in the Box Score

Plus/minus measures the difference between a team’s points scored and points allowed while a particular player is on the court.

For example, Queta’s +22 means Boston outscored Houston by 22 points during his time on the floor. Smith’s -29 means Houston was outscored by 29 points during his time on the floor.

The statistic is useful, but it must be interpreted carefully.

A positive plus/minus does not mean a player personally scored or prevented that many points. Likewise, a negative number does not prove that a player performed poorly in every aspect of the game.

Several factors influence plus/minus:

Teammates sharing the court with the player.
Opponents faced during the player’s minutes.
Team shooting performance during those minutes.
Defensive rotations and rebounding.
Substitution patterns and the game situation.

Queta’s +22 was the highest positive figure listed for Boston, while Smith’s -29 was the lowest figure listed for Houston.

These numbers support the overall picture of Boston’s advantage, but individual player evaluation should also consider points, rebounds, assists, turnovers, steals, blocks, shooting percentages, and available playing-time information.

Shooting Efficiency and the Limits of the Available Data

The reported team shooting percentages were relatively close: Boston shot 43% from the field, and Houston shot 41%. Both teams made 37% of their three-point attempts.

Those percentages alone might suggest a closer shooting contest than the final score indicates. However, they do not tell the full story.

Boston made 39 field goals, while Houston made 34. The Celtics also made eight more three-pointers and converted three more free throws.

A useful measure for comparing scoring efficiency is effective field-goal percentage, which gives additional weight to three-point shots.

The formula is:

\[ \text{eFG\%}=\frac{\text{FGM}+0.5(\text{3PM})}{\text{FGA}}\times100 \]

Using the supplied figures, Boston’s effective field-goal percentage was approximately 53.9%, while Houston’s was approximately 47.0%.

This calculation provides additional context because a made three-pointer is worth more than a made two-point field goal.

Boston’s result was therefore not simply about making a slightly higher percentage of all field-goal attempts. The Celtics also generated more value from their successful perimeter shots.

Another useful measure is the free-throw percentage:

\[ \text{FT\%}=\frac{\text{FTM}}{\text{FTA}}\times100 \]

Boston’s 17-for-20 performance produced an 85% free-throw percentage. Houston’s 14-for-22 result was approximately 63.6%, reported as 64%.

These calculations use the team totals supplied for the game. They do not replace a complete possession-based analysis, which would also require details such as exact possession counts and play-by-play events.

For readers comparing player and team performances, this distinction matters. Raw shooting percentages, effective field-goal percentage, and free-throw accuracy measure different aspects of scoring.

Season Series: Boston and Houston Split Their Meetings

The February result left the regular-season series tied 1-1.

Meeting	Date	Result	Winner
First Meeting	November 2, 2025	Rockets 128, Celtics 101	Houston Rockets
Second Meeting	February 5, 2026	Celtics 114, Rockets 93	Boston Celtics

Houston won the first meeting by 27 points. Boston responded in the second game with a 21-point victory.

The two results show that each team won one game, but they do not establish which team was stronger over the entire season. A broader comparison would need additional games, player availability, and performance across the full schedule.

The difference between the two meetings is also a reminder that a single head-to-head result should not be treated as a complete measure of team quality. Injuries, rotations, shooting outcomes, and matchup conditions can vary between games.

For this particular contest, the strongest conclusion comes from the February statistics: Boston rebounded more effectively, made more three-pointers, converted free throws at a higher rate, and won the third quarter decisively.

What These Match Player Stats Tell Us

The Celtics’ victory offers several useful lessons for understanding basketball box scores.

First, scoring balance matters. White and Pritchard combined for 55 points, giving Boston two major offensive contributors.

Second, rebounding can shape the entire contest. Boston’s 57 rebounds compared with Houston’s 38 represented a substantial difference in possession control.

Third, shooting volume and shooting accuracy should be examined together. Both teams shot 37% from three-point range, but Boston made 19 threes while Houston made 11.

Fourth, free-throw accuracy can help explain why two teams with relatively similar field-goal percentages finish with different scores. Boston converted 85% of its free throws, compared with Houston’s 64%.

Finally, quarter-by-quarter scoring adds context that the final score cannot provide alone. Boston’s 36-21 third quarter was the decisive statistical stretch.

For anyone evaluating an NBA game, these measures work best together. Points identify the leading scorers, rebounds show control of missed shots, assists help describe passing contributions, and shooting percentages reveal how successfully teams converted attempts.

No single category explains every result. In this game, however, several independent statistical advantages pointed in the same direction.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What was the final score of the Celtics vs Houston Rockets game on February 5, 2026?

The Boston Celtics defeated the Houston Rockets 114-93 at Toyota Center in Houston, Texas. Boston’s 36-21 advantage in the third quarter was the game’s decisive scoring stretch.

2. Who scored the most points in the game?

Derrick White led all players with 28 points for Boston. Payton Pritchard followed closely with 27 points off the bench. Kevin Durant was Houston’s leading scorer with 15 points.

3. Which player had the most rebounds?

Neemias Queta led all players with 19 rebounds for Boston. He also recorded 10 points, two steals, and five blocks, making him a major contributor on the defensive end.

4. Which team had better overall statistics?

Boston led in total rebounds, assists, made field goals, made three-pointers, and free-throw percentage. Houston recorded more steals and fewer turnovers, but those advantages were not enough to overcome Boston’s stronger overall production.

5. How many three-pointers did each team make?

Boston made 19 of 51 three-point attempts, while Houston made 11 of 30. Both teams shot approximately 37% from beyond the arc, but Boston made eight more three-pointers.

6. What was the biggest difference between the Celtics and Rockets?

Rebounding was the clearest statistical difference. Boston collected 57 rebounds compared with Houston’s 38. The Celtics also won the third quarter 36-21 and converted free throws more consistently.

Conclusion

The Boston Celtics’ 114-93 victory over the Houston Rockets on February 5, 2026, demonstrated the importance of rebounding, scoring depth, and consistent execution. Derrick White led the game with 28 points, while Payton Pritchard delivered 27 points and seven assists off the bench. Neemias Queta controlled the boards with 19 rebounds and protected the rim with five blocks.

Boston’s 57-38 rebounding advantage, 19 made three-pointers, and 85% free-throw shooting helped establish a clear statistical advantage. Houston’s 10 steals and nine turnovers showed strengths in defensive disruption and ball security, but the Rockets could not compensate for their rebounding deficit and difficult third quarter.

The result also completed a 1-1 split in the teams’ 2025-26 regular-season meetings. Looking at the individual box scores alongside team totals provides a more complete understanding of how Boston won and where Houston struggled.

For official league statistics and basketball data, readers can consult NBA.com/stats.

Meta Description

Explore celtics vs houston rockets match player stats, key scorers, team comparisons, quarter scores, and why Boston won in detail

Additional SEO Recommendations

SEO title: Celtics vs Houston Rockets Match Player Stats (51 characters)
Suggested URL slug: celtics-vs-houston-rockets-match-player-stats
Schema markup: Use Article schema for the article and FAQPage schema only where appropriate for the page and applicable Google guidelines.
Accuracy note: Before publishing, cross-check the individual player totals and team box score against the official game record, especially where supplied player figures may not reconcile with team totals.

Celtics vs Houston Rockets Match Player Stats: February 5, 2026