GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S AJ Green 41.1m
35
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+37.0

An absolute flamethrower performance from beyond the arc completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme. His quick release punished every late closeout, forcing the defense into impossible rotation choices. He also competed hard on the perimeter, ensuring his offensive explosion wasn't wasted by defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 11/16 (68.8%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.1m
Offense +35.8
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +43.0
Avg player in 41.1m -6.0
Impact +37.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ousmane Dieng 37.1m
12
pts
6
reb
12
ast
Impact
-15.1

Ambitious playmaking attempts resulted in a catastrophic turnover rate that constantly put the defense in scramble mode. He tried to thread the needle on too many pick-and-roll feeds instead of making the simple read. Despite decent length on the perimeter, those given-away possessions severely punished the team's bottom line.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 37.1m -23.3
Impact -15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Taurean Prince 35.1m
18
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.3

Hot perimeter shooting was heavily undermined by poor closeouts and late rotations on the defensive end. He consistently lost his man off the ball, surrendering back-door cuts that negated his offensive firepower. A few costly transition fouls further dragged his net impact slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +3.6
Defense +5.4
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 35.1m -16.9
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cormac Ryan 34.0m
28
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.7

Relentless off-ball movement exhausted his defenders and generated a steady stream of high-quality looks. He paired his scoring punch with excellent transition hustle, frequently beating the pack down the floor to prevent easy breaks. The combination of shot-making and high-motor effort made him a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +20.2
Hustle +4.5
Defense +0.4
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 34.0m -11.4
Impact +13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Myles Turner 26.7m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.1

Elite rim deterrence anchored the defense, completely altering the opponent's shot profile in the paint. He struggled to find his stroke from the perimeter, but his disciplined drop coverage prevented easy layups. Controlling the restricted area proved far more valuable than his offensive inconsistencies.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.5
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 26.7m -24.7
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 0
Jericho Sims 30.3m
11
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.0

Flawless execution in his role as a lob threat and offensive rebounder generated highly efficient, high-percentage offense. He anchored the paint with verticality, consistently challenging drivers without fouling. By playing entirely within himself and dominating the dirty work, he maximized his value on both ends.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +6.2
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 30.3m -22.6
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Kyle Kuzma 20.8m
8
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-15.1

A complete lack of defensive engagement allowed his matchup to score at will, tanking his overall impact. He was frequently caught ball-watching on the weak side, leading to uncontested layups and open corner threes. Even with efficient offensive touches, his apathy in transition defense made him a massive liability.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.9
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 20.8m -14.8
Impact -15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-21.6

Offensive invisibility and poor spacing allowed his defender to freely roam and clog the driving lanes for teammates. He struggled to find any rhythm, often hesitating on open looks and disrupting the team's offensive flow. Without his usual chaotic energy generating extra possessions, his presence on the floor was heavily detrimental.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense -5.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.8
Raw total -4.8
Avg player in 15.0m -16.8
Impact -21.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Malachi Smith 42.7m
19
pts
8
reb
10
ast
Impact
+16.4

Playmaking volume drove a massive offensive rating, but sloppy ball security in the half-court ate into his overall impact. His aggressive dribble penetration created open looks for shooters, though he occasionally forced passes into tight windows. Still, his ability to break down the primary defender set the tone for the offense.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.7m
Offense +23.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +30.3
Avg player in 42.7m -13.9
Impact +16.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ben Saraf 41.3m
15
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.1

Perimeter trigger-happiness severely damaged his net impact, as he bricked multiple early-clock triples that fueled opponent fast breaks. His point-of-attack defense remained pesky, but the sheer volume of empty offensive trips negated his hustle. He needs to recognize when to drive rather than settling for contested pull-ups.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.3m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense -0.8
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 41.3m -9.7
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 78.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Trevon Scott 41.0m
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

Impact cratered despite decent defensive metrics because of poor shot selection and stalled offensive flow. He repeatedly forced heavily contested looks late in the shot clock, bailing out the opposing defense. While he fought hard on the glass, those wasted offensive trips generated too many transition opportunities going the other way.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.0m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 41.0m -16.5
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Tyson Etienne 32.5m
23
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.3

Elite floor spacing kept the offense humming, but a turnstile performance on the perimeter nearly wiped out his offensive contributions. Opposing guards repeatedly targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, forcing defensive rotations that led to easy buckets. His gravity as a shooter is undeniable, yet his inability to stay in front of his man remains a glaring liability.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +21.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense -3.3
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 32.5m -11.2
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S E.J. Liddell 31.7m
13
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.2

Despite solid weak-side rim protection and active hands in the passing lanes, his overall value dipped into the red due to empty offensive possessions. A tendency to settle for contested mid-range jumpers rather than attacking the basket stalled the team's momentum. His physical post defense was a bright spot, but the offensive inefficiency outweighed the stops.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 31.7m -10.7
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jalen Wilson 34.5m
13
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.6

A high-usage playmaking role resulted in too many live-ball turnovers that directly fed the opponent's transition attack. While he showed great vision finding cutters out of the high post, his sloppy ball security in traffic dragged his overall value into the negative. Cleaning up those unforced errors is essential for him to maximize his versatile skill set.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.7
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 34.5m -16.9
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Nolan Traore 16.3m
14
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.7

Defensive dominance completely overshadowed a brutal shooting night from the perimeter. He completely shut down the opposing backcourt during a crucial second-half stretch, generating deflections and blowing up dribble hand-offs. The offensive inefficiency was easily masked by how thoroughly he disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +4.2
Defense +9.3
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 16.3m -15.5
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1