Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIL lead CHI lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CHI 2P — 3P —
MIL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 193 attempts

CHI CHI Shot-making Δ

Giddey 6/14 -0.2
Buzelis 8/13 +3.3
Vučević 7/13 +2.9
Huerter 5/13 -4.0
Jones Open 6/10 -0.2
Dosunmu 3/6 +0.5
Williams Hard 2/6 0.0
Smith 3/6 -0.9
Okoro Open 3/6 -1.9
Phillips 0/2 -2.5

MIL MIL Shot-making Δ

Antetokounmpo Open 16/32 -6.5
Turner 8/14 +5.4
Anthony Hard 5/14 -2.0
Rollins 7/13 +3.5
Trent Jr. Hard 2/9 -3.7
Green Hard 2/8 -1.4
Kuzma Open 4/6 +1.4
Portis 3/5 +1.6
Coffey Open 1/2 -0.3
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHI
MIL
44/90 Field Goals 48/103
48.9% Field Goal % 46.6%
10/33 3-Pointers 16/39
30.3% 3-Point % 41.0%
12/16 Free Throws 14/18
75.0% Free Throw % 77.8%
56.7% True Shooting % 56.8%
51 Total Rebounds 60
8 Offensive 14
37 Defensive 39
34 Assists 27
2.43 Assist/TO Ratio 2.45
14 Turnovers 11
9 Steals 10
3 Blocks 6
19 Fouls 16
62 Points in Paint 60
21 Fast Break Pts 16
13 Points off TOs 19
11 Second Chance Pts 20
35 Bench Points 31
8 Largest Lead 17
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Giannis Antetokounmpo
41 PTS · 15 REB · 9 AST · 37.3 MIN
+35.98
2
Myles Turner
23 PTS · 8 REB · 0 AST · 31.3 MIN
+25.52
3
Ryan Rollins
20 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 30.9 MIN
+24.23
4
Matas Buzelis
20 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 35.8 MIN
+20.45
5
Tre Jones
17 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 29.4 MIN
+18.91
6
Kyle Kuzma
11 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 28.4 MIN
+13.57
7
Josh Giddey
16 PTS · 7 REB · 14 AST · 34.6 MIN
+10.31
8
Nikola Vučević
16 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 31.2 MIN
+9.66
9
Ayo Dosunmu
7 PTS · 0 REB · 3 AST · 20.0 MIN
+7.87
10
Isaac Okoro
6 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 16.6 MIN
+6.8
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 J. Giddey STEAL (1 STL) 110–126
Q4 0:00 G. Antetokounmpo bad pass TURNOVER (4 TO) 110–126
Q4 0:02 J. Giddey Free Throw 2 of 2 (16 PTS) 110–126
Q4 0:02 TEAM offensive REBOUND 109–126
Q4 0:02 MISS J. Giddey Free Throw 1 of 2 109–126
Q4 0:02 G. Antetokounmpo personal FOUL (1 PF) (Giddey 2 FT) 109–126
Q4 0:06 M. Turner 3PT (23 PTS) (G. Antetokounmpo 9 AST) 109–126
Q4 0:10 T. Jones putback Layup (17 PTS) 109–123
Q4 0:12 T. Jones REBOUND (Off:2 Def:3) 107–123
Q4 0:14 MISS M. Buzelis 25' 3PT 107–123
Q4 0:20 K. Kuzma tip Layup (11 PTS) 107–123
Q4 0:20 K. Kuzma REBOUND (Off:2 Def:6) 107–121
Q4 0:21 MISS K. Kuzma cutting Layup 107–121
Q4 0:33 M. Turner REBOUND (Off:3 Def:5) 107–121
Q4 0:34 R. Rollins BLOCK (1 BLK) 107–121

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
41
pts
15
reb
9
ast
Impact
+39.1

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
Scoring +26.6
Creation +5.2
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +18.1
Defense +5.4
Turnovers -9.5
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
-9.1

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
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.7
Turnovers -2.4
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
+21.8

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
Scoring +18.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +5.9
Hustle +7.2
Defense +6.5
Turnovers -5.4
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
+20.5

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
Scoring +14.8
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +5.7
Defense +5.7
Turnovers -2.4
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
-11.3

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
Scoring +0.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
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
+8.2

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
Scoring +9.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +8.2
Defense -0.1
Turnovers +0.0
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
-2.5

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
Scoring +4.4
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
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
-0.9

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
Scoring +5.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
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
-9.8

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
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
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
-13.3

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
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
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
+15.4

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
Scoring +16.0
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +9.2
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -7.1
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
-1.3

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
Scoring +8.9
Creation +3.0
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -9.5
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
+2.4

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
Scoring +12.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +1.8
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
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
+13.3

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
Scoring +13.4
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
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
-3.6

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
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense -0.9
Turnovers +0.0
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
-5.4

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
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
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
-11.3

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
Scoring +7.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -7.1
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
-3.1

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
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -2.4
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
-6.7

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
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +5.4
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
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
-8.9

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
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
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
-13.4

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
Scoring -1.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0