GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
41
pts
15
reb
9
ast
Impact
+21.1

Utterly dominated the game through sheer physical force, generating a monstrous defensive impact (+12.7 Def) by erasing shots at the rim. His relentless downhill attacks forced the defense into constant rotation and foul trouble. Even with a high volume of missed interior attempts, his two-way gravity dictated the terms of the entire matchup.

Shooting
FG 16/32 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 40.4%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +27.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +12.7
Raw total +44.1
Avg player in 37.3m -23.0
Impact +21.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 4
S AJ Green 34.6m
6
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-14.0

Tanked his overall impact by strictly hunting perimeter shots and failing to convert them. His one-dimensional offensive approach allowed defenders to stay home and stifle ball movement. Despite adequate effort metrics, his cold shooting directly fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 34.6m -21.3
Impact -14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Myles Turner 31.3m
23
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+15.1

Stretched the floor to its breaking point while simultaneously locking down the paint (+10.4 Def). His lethal pick-and-pop execution punished drop coverage repeatedly, creating massive driving lanes for his teammates. A masterclass in modern two-way center play, blending elite rim protection with perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg +26.8
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +6.1
Defense +10.4
Raw total +34.3
Avg player in 31.3m -19.2
Impact +15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 47.8%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
S Ryan Rollins 30.9m
20
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.2

Provided a massive spark with highly efficient shot creation and disruptive perimeter defense (+8.2 Def). His constant motor (+5.6 Hustle) resulted in crucial loose ball recoveries that extended possessions. Proved to be a dynamic two-way catalyst who capitalized on every opportunity in space.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +5.6
Defense +8.2
Raw total +30.2
Avg player in 30.9m -19.0
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Gary Trent Jr. 22.5m
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.2

Sabotaged the offense with a brutal shooting display, clanking heavily contested jumpers early in the shot clock. His inability to find the bottom of the net completely stalled the team's momentum and allowed the defense to pack the paint. Minor defensive contributions (+1.7 Def) were entirely erased by his offensive black hole.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 22.5m -13.8
Impact -12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kyle Kuzma 28.4m
11
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Posted a deceptively neutral impact score despite a highly efficient offensive outing. His lack of secondary effort plays (+1.4 Hustle) and likely defensive lapses off the ball offset his smooth scoring. A classic example of individual bucket-getting failing to move the needle for the team's overall success.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +23.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 28.4m -17.4
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Cole Anthony 22.2m
11
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.5

Dragged down his overall effectiveness through a barrage of inefficient, isolation-heavy shot attempts. While he showed flashes of defensive resistance (+2.9 Def), his tendency to stop the ball and force contested mid-range looks stalled the offensive flow. The scoring volume was ultimately hollow given the possessions required to achieve it.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 22.2m -13.7
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Bobby Portis 19.6m
7
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

Provided a quick offensive punch but gave the points right back on the other end of the floor. His inability to anchor the defense (+1.7 Def) or secure contested rebounds allowed opponents to feast in the paint. The efficient shooting couldn't mask his structural defensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.7
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 19.6m -12.1
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Struggled to find a rhythm during a brief stint, offering minimal resistance or offensive gravity. Failed to make a dent in the hustle categories (+0.6) and largely blended into the background. A forgettable rotation shift that slightly bled value due to overall passivity.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 9.7m -6.0
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Registered a quick negative impact by getting exposed defensively (-0.5 Def) in just three minutes of action. Offered absolutely zero hustle or physical presence to deter drivers. Was quickly pulled after failing to execute basic rotational assignments.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +0.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 3.5m -2.1
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Matas Buzelis 35.8m
20
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.3

Anchored the frontcourt with a massive two-way effort, largely fueled by exceptional weak-side rim protection (+10.6 Def). His relentless activity on the glass and in passing lanes (+5.6 Hustle) compounded his highly efficient interior finishing. The rookie's high motor translated directly to winning basketball across heavy minutes.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +5.6
Defense +10.6
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 35.8m -22.1
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Josh Giddey 34.6m
16
pts
7
reb
14
ast
Impact
-7.3

Blew a hole in his own impact score through a combination of erratic shot selection and costly live-ball turnovers. While his elite playmaking vision was on full display, the sheer volume of empty possessions and missed paint attempts dragged his overall value down. The defensive metrics (+4.0) couldn't salvage a highly inefficient offensive shift.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 34.6m -21.2
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
16
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Despite active hustle (+5.8) and a solid statistical output, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive limitations in space. Opponents likely targeted his drop coverage in the pick-and-roll, offsetting the value of his interior scoring. The veteran's presence simply wasn't enough to overcome the defensive bleeding during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +5.8
Defense +4.4
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 31.2m -19.2
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 30
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tre Jones 29.4m
17
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.3

Orchestrated the offense with surgical precision, generating a massive +17.5 box score impact through high-quality shot creation and zero forced looks. His point-of-attack defense (+3.2 Def) and steady hands limited opponent transition opportunities. A quintessential floor-general performance defined by mistake-free basketball and timely execution.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 29.4m -18.2
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Isaac Okoro 16.6m
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Generated a modest positive impact by leaning heavily on his defensive assignments (+3.9 Def). While his perimeter shot abandoned him entirely, his ability to contest shots and secure loose balls (+1.9 Hustle) kept his minutes productive. A reliable, low-mistake shift off the bench defined by point-of-attack pressure.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -31.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.9
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 16.6m -10.2
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Struggled to leave a positive imprint on the game due to passive offensive involvement and missed perimeter looks. Although he provided adequate weak-side help (+4.0 Def), his inability to consistently punish closeouts rendered him an offensive liability. A classic case of floating on the perimeter without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.0
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 23.4m -14.4
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.2

Cratered his overall value by forcing contested perimeter jumpers and failing to space the floor effectively. Providing absolutely zero defensive resistance (-0.0 Def), he became an easy target for opposing guards to attack off the dribble. The combination of bricked threes and defensive invisibility made this a highly damaging stint.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg -23.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 23.2m -14.2
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
Ayo Dosunmu 20.0m
7
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.6

Played a scrappy defensive role (+4.2 Def) but couldn't generate enough offensive gravity to warrant a positive score. His hesitance to attack the rim and limited playmaking allowed the defense to sag off him and clog the paint. Ultimately, his offensive stagnation outweighed his solid point-of-attack pressure.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 20.0m -12.3
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Smith 16.8m
7
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.9

Capitalized on his limited minutes by bringing immediate energy and physicality to the paint (+4.3 Hustle). His willingness to do the dirty work on the interior masked some minor defensive positioning errors. A highly efficient, low-maintenance spark plug performance off the bench.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.2
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 16.8m -10.3
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Barely registered an impact during a brief five-minute cameo. Failed to generate any noticeable hustle stats or defensive disruption. Simply existed on the floor without tilting the game in either direction.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense +2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 5.3m -3.3
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Hemorrhaged value in less than four minutes by forcing bad shots and failing to contribute elsewhere. A completely empty shift characterized by zero hustle plays and blown offensive possessions. The rapid negative accumulation shows how quickly poor shot selection can hurt a team.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -44.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense -1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 3.8m -2.3
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0