GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
25
pts
7
reb
18
ast
Impact
+5.8

Unprecedented playmaking volume from the frontcourt shattered the defense's shell and drove a stellar positive impact. By drawing multiple bodies on his downhill drives, he systematically picked apart rotations to feed open shooters. Elite rim protection (+8.6 Def) complemented an offensive performance defined by sheer gravitational pull.

Shooting
FG 12/18 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg +20.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.4m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +3.7
Defense +8.6
Raw total +29.5
Avg player in 40.4m -23.7
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 7
S Kyle Kuzma 38.6m
29
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.6

A masterclass in two-way execution, combining highly decisive shot-making with suffocating defensive reads (+12.3 Def). He consistently punished mismatches in the mid-post, elevating his scoring output dramatically compared to recent outings. This dual-threat dominance dictated the tempo and anchored a massive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg +32.6
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +19.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +12.3
Raw total +35.1
Avg player in 38.6m -22.5
Impact +12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 3
S Ryan Rollins 34.4m
20
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.3

Sizzling perimeter efficiency failed to translate into a positive total impact due to hidden costs in the half-court flow. Despite maintaining his recent high-scoring baseline, defensive lapses and poor rotational timing gave back the points he generated. He thrived as a spot-up threat but struggled to contain the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +40.2
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.7
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 34.4m -20.2
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Myles Turner 33.4m
18
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.4

Lethal pick-and-pop execution completely inverted the floor and dragged opposing bigs out of the paint. Breaking out of a recent scoring slump, his perimeter marksmanship was the tactical key that unlocked driving lanes for the guards. Solid drop-coverage discipline (+4.0 Def) ensured his offensive explosion resulted in a net positive.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 6/8 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +36.6
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense +4.0
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 33.4m -19.5
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S AJ Green 25.5m
13
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

Floor-spacing gravity kept the offense flowing, but underlying defensive vulnerabilities ultimately dragged his impact into the negative. Opponents actively targeted his lateral quickness on the perimeter, bleeding points on the other end of the floor. While he commanded attention behind the arc, the defensive trade-off proved costly over his extended run.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.8%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +48.2
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 25.5m -14.9
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gary Harris 22.8m
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Opportunistic off-ball cutting and elite point-of-attack defense (+4.7 Def) defined a highly efficient role-player performance. He capitalized on defensive naps to score easy backdoor layups, significantly boosting his recent production. His ability to navigate screens and hound ball-handlers ensured a solid positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.7
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 22.8m -13.5
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Passive offensive positioning limited his overall influence, as he deferred too often instead of hunting his usual shots. While his defensive effort was passable, his inability to bend the defense off the catch stalled the team's momentum. The resulting negative impact reflects a player who floated on the perimeter rather than forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 21.5m -12.5
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Bobby Portis 19.3m
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Tunnel vision in the post generated decent individual numbers but disrupted the broader offensive rhythm. His tendency to hold the ball against double teams allowed the defense to reset, dragging down his overall impact metric. A lack of secondary rim protection further limited his effectiveness during his frontcourt shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -28.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 19.3m -11.3
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Cole Anthony 18.5m
10
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.0

Impact cratered due to disjointed offensive initiation that frequently stalled the shot clock. Even though his individual shooting splits looked clean, his inability to organize the second unit led to empty, scrambled possessions. He was repeatedly hunted on defense in pick-and-roll switches, compounding the negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg -29.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 18.5m -10.9
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Jericho Sims 10.2m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

A sharp drop in offensive involvement rendered him largely invisible during his brief stint. He failed to establish deep post position or roll with intent, allowing the defense to completely ignore him. This lack of vertical spacing bogged down the second unit and drove a severe negative impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 10.2m -6.0
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Logged mere seconds at the end of a quarter strictly for defensive purposes. He had no time to register any meaningful statistics or alter the game's trajectory. A purely situational substitution.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.1m -0.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Stepped onto the floor for a single dead-ball possession to burn the clock. The microscopic negative impact is simply statistical noise from a late-game lineup shuffle. He was utilized entirely as a clock-management piece.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.1m -0.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Mark Sears 0.1m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Made a cameo appearance that lasted less than a single shot clock. His presence was required solely to execute a specific late-game inbound alignment. He departed before making any tangible imprint on the contest.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.1m -0.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Moussa Diabaté 43.3m
15
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Sustained interior efficiency anchored his positive net impact, continuing a highly reliable streak of finishing in the paint. He consistently sealed his man early in transition, creating deep post position that yielded high-percentage looks. Active activity on the glass and solid rim deterrence (+3.7 Def) rounded out a fundamentally sound shift.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -18.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.3m
Offense +19.0
Hustle +4.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 43.3m -25.3
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 64.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Miles Bridges 42.4m
32
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.3

Shot volume was the primary engine here, as he relentlessly hunted looks from beyond the arc to stretch the defense. While this floor-spacing gravity generated a massive box score metric, his overall impact was slightly muted by the sheer number of empty possessions. Still, his willingness to take tough contested jumpers bailed out several late-clock situations.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 6/15 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 24.8%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.4m
Offense +20.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.8
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 42.4m -24.8
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Sion James 42.0m
12
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.4

Elite defensive disruption (+11.8 Def) and relentless hustle plays almost completely salvaged a negative overall impact. Despite breaking out of a severe shooting slump, his offensive rhythm remained clunky and disrupted the team's half-court flow. His ability to blow up dribble hand-offs on the perimeter was the lone bright spot in an otherwise disjointed performance.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.0m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +5.8
Defense +11.8
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 42.0m -24.6
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kon Knueppel 41.2m
32
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.6

An immense offensive leap from his recent baseline drove a dominant positive impact. His aggressive downhill attacks and high-volume perimeter execution forced defensive rotations all night. Strong rotational awareness on the other end (+6.6 Def) ensured his scoring burst translated directly to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.2m
Offense +23.4
Hustle +4.7
Defense +6.6
Raw total +34.7
Avg player in 41.2m -24.1
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S LaMelo Ball 27.4m
16
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
-0.9

Elite playmaking vision generated high-quality looks for teammates, but ongoing shooting struggles dragged his overall impact into the red. Opponents sagged off him in the pick-and-roll, daring him to shoot and effectively clogging the driving lanes for others. High-energy loose ball recoveries (+6.1 Hustle) partially mitigated the damage of his inefficient shot selection.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +6.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 27.4m -15.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Tre Mann 29.2m
9
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-11.4

A severe negative total impact reveals how much his offensive possessions stalled the broader team execution. Even with a scoring bump relative to recent quiet outings, his tendency to over-dribble into contested mid-range areas killed offensive momentum. Lackluster closeouts and minimal physical engagement (+0.8 Hustle) further compounded his struggles on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -38.8
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 29.2m -17.0
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.6

Hyper-efficient burst scoring in limited minutes provided a massive jolt to the second unit. He repeatedly attacked tilted defenses off the catch, maintaining a scorching streak of high-percentage finishing. This quick-strike capability maximized his floor time and drove a highly positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -35.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.3
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 15.9m -9.4
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

Completely vanished as an offensive threat, failing to capitalize on open spot-up opportunities. However, highly disciplined weak-side defensive rotations (+5.3 Def) prevented his impact score from completely cratering. His willingness to sacrifice his body on drives was the only thing keeping him playable during this stint.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.3
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 10.0m -5.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Exceptional screen-setting and physical box-outs (+4.0 Hustle) defined a brief but bruising stint. He focused entirely on doing the dirty work in the paint, though his lack of offensive gravity slightly cramped the floor spacing. A neutral overall impact accurately reflects a shift dedicated to absorbing contact rather than generating stats.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.5%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 9.7m -5.8
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Barely registered on the game's radar during a fleeting appearance, providing zero tangible metric boosts. His defensive positioning was a step slow in transition, leading to quick opponent scores that tanked his brief plus-minus. He functioned strictly as a placeholder while the primary rotation caught its breath.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +31.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 3.9m -2.2
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0