Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
TOR lead MIL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MIL 2P — 3P —
TOR 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 175 attempts

MIL MIL Shot-making Δ

Trent Jr. Hard 7/15 +2.4
Antetokounmpo Open 11/14 +5.9
Anthony 9/14 +5.1
Portis 5/13 -2.5
Rollins 5/11 -1.3
Turner Hard 2/8 -3.4
Green Hard 3/5 +4.1
Kuzma Open 4/5 +2.0
Prince 1/4 -1.8
Coffey Hard 0/1 -0.8

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Ingram 10/20 +2.1
Barnes Hard 6/15 -0.4
Quickley 6/14 -1.9
Barrett 9/12 +6.3
Dick 2/7 -2.6
Shead 1/6 -4.2
Poeltl Open 3/5 -0.5
Battle Hard 3/3 +6.1
Mamukelashvili Hard 1/2 +0.1
Agbaji Open 1/1 +0.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MIL
TOR
47/90 Field Goals 42/85
52.2% Field Goal % 49.4%
14/40 3-Pointers 11/27
35.0% 3-Point % 40.7%
14/25 Free Throws 21/32
56.0% Free Throw % 65.6%
60.4% True Shooting % 58.5%
60 Total Rebounds 48
14 Offensive 10
37 Defensive 31
25 Assists 25
1.32 Assist/TO Ratio 1.56
18 Turnovers 16
9 Steals 10
5 Blocks 4
24 Fouls 21
54 Points in Paint 54
10 Fast Break Pts 18
18 Points off TOs 16
17 Second Chance Pts 10
45 Bench Points 25
10 Largest Lead 7
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Giannis Antetokounmpo
31 PTS · 20 REB · 7 AST · 37.6 MIN
+29.55
2
Cole Anthony
23 PTS · 4 REB · 7 AST · 26.7 MIN
+21.84
3
RJ Barrett
20 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 32.9 MIN
+19.27
4
Immanuel Quickley
19 PTS · 7 REB · 8 AST · 36.5 MIN
+16.65
5
Brandon Ingram
29 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 37.4 MIN
+16.41
6
Ryan Rollins
13 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 29.7 MIN
+13.56
7
Scottie Barnes
17 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 35.8 MIN
+11.53
8
Jamison Battle
9 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 10.6 MIN
+9.2
9
Gary Trent Jr.
20 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 29.4 MIN
+8.0
10
Kyle Kuzma
8 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 17.8 MIN
+7.03
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:06 C. Anthony REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 122–116
Q4 0:10 MISS B. Ingram 24' pullup 3PT 122–116
Q4 0:19 I. Quickley REBOUND (Off:3 Def:4) 122–116
Q4 0:21 MISS G. Trent Jr. Free Throw 2 of 2 122–116
Q4 0:21 G. Trent Jr. Free Throw 1 of 2 (20 PTS) 122–116
Q4 0:21 J. Poeltl personal FOUL (5 PF) (Trent Jr. 2 FT) 121–116
Q4 0:22 J. Poeltl cutting Layup (6 PTS) (B. Ingram 3 AST) 121–116
Q4 0:34 G. Trent Jr. 3PT (19 PTS) (C. Anthony 7 AST) 121–114
Q4 0:50 B. Ingram 26' 3PT step back (29 PTS) (S. Barnes 3 AST) 118–114
Q4 0:52 R. Barrett REBOUND (Off:0 Def:6) 118–111
Q4 0:53 MISS G. Antetokounmpo Free Throw 2 of 2 118–111
Q4 0:53 G. Antetokounmpo Free Throw 1 of 2 (31 PTS) 118–111
Q4 0:53 R. Barrett personal FOUL (2 PF) (Antetokounmpo 2 FT) 117–111
Q4 1:03 I. Quickley bad pass out-of-bounds TURNOVER (2 TO) 117–111
Q4 1:09 C. Anthony driving reverse Layup (23 PTS) 117–111

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

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 37.4m
29
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.1

An explosive scoring night was entirely neutralized by defensive passivity and slow closeouts on the perimeter. He consistently traded baskets, allowing his primary matchup to score just as easily on the other end. The heavy isolation diet produced points but failed to elevate the overall offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Scoring +21.3
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +4.7
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
19
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
+17.8

Dictated the terms of engagement through relentless hustle and phenomenal point-of-attack defense. Even with a few missed jumpers, his ability to generate transition opportunities via deflections kept the opponent on their heels. He was the primary engine for the team's most successful two-way runs.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.6%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Scoring +11.6
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +8.9
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Scottie Barnes 35.8m
17
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.3

Offensive inefficiency and forced drives into traffic severely undercut his otherwise stellar defensive metrics. While he disrupted passing lanes and provided great weak-side help, his erratic shot selection killed several momentum-building possessions. The negative overall score reflects how much his offensive struggles weighed down the unit.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -23.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense +6.2
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S RJ Barrett 32.9m
20
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.5

Punished mismatches with ruthless efficiency, utilizing strong straight-line drives to collapse the defense. His impact was amplified by highly engaged on-ball defense that stifled opponent penetration. Played with a controlled aggression that stabilized the offense during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Scoring +16.8
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Jakob Poeltl 26.6m
6
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.0

Failed to anchor the paint effectively, getting out-leveraged by quicker bigs in the pick-and-roll. His offensive touches plummeted, and without his usual screening gravity, the half-court offense grew stagnant. A lack of rim deterrence ultimately drove his negative impact on the night.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 52.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gradey Dick 17.6m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.9

Continued a rough shooting stretch by forcing contested looks early in the shot clock. Opponents actively targeted him in space, forcing defensive rotations that compromised the entire scheme. His inability to stretch the floor effectively turned him into a liability on both ends.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.8

Blended into the background offensively, failing to exploit open space or demand the ball. His defensive rotations were a step slow, leading to easy dump-off passes around the basket. The lack of assertiveness on both ends resulted in a perfectly neutral, forgettable stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ochai Agbaji 11.7m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.8

Completely invisible during his minutes, offering zero resistance on the perimeter. His reluctance to engage offensively allowed the defense to play five-on-four, clogging the driving lanes for his teammates. The severe negative impact stems from being a total non-threat who compromised the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Shead 11.5m
4
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.8

Salvaged a miserable shooting night by locking down his assignment and making sharp connective passes. His defensive pressure disrupted the opponent's timing just enough to keep his overall impact afloat. He recognized his shot wasn't falling and smartly shifted his focus to facilitation and grit.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

Provided a flawless burst of floor spacing by knocking down every look he was given from beyond the arc. His gravity forced hard closeouts, which opened up driving lanes for the primary creators. Played exactly the role required, supplementing his perfect shooting with disciplined team defense.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +43.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.7

Maximized a tiny window of playing time by blowing up two offensive sets with elite switchability. Despite not taking a single shot, his defensive communication and rim deterrence provided an immediate jolt. He proved to be a highly effective situational stopper in limited action.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
31
pts
20
reb
7
ast
Impact
+33.1

Utterly dominated the interior matchups, pairing hyper-efficient finishing with suffocating weak-side rim protection. His massive defensive impact stemmed from shutting off driving lanes and cleaning up the glass to limit second-chance opportunities. This was a masterclass in two-way physical imposition that dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 11/14 (78.6%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 7/12 (58.3%)
Advanced
TS% 80.4%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Scoring +26.4
Creation +4.2
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +21.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -13.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Ryan Rollins 29.7m
13
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.1

Shifted his value entirely to the defensive end when his usual scoring touch wasn't there. Generated massive impact through relentless point-of-attack pressure and elite hustle plays that blew up opponent handoffs. Even with a dip in offensive volume, his disruptive energy set a tone that swung momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +5.4
Defense +6.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Gary Trent Jr. 29.4m
20
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.2

Despite an above-average scoring output, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to defensive lapses and missed perimeter assignments. The heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers yielded empty possessions that allowed the opponent to dictate the pace. His scoring volume ultimately masked a lack of resistance on the other end.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +12.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -6.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Myles Turner 28.2m
4
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.4

Offensive rhythm completely evaporated against physical post coverage, resulting in forced shots and empty trips. While he offered some baseline rim deterrence, his inability to stretch the floor severely bogged down the half-court offense. The steep negative impact was driven entirely by offensive stagnation and poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S AJ Green 25.6m
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Provided a solid spark with his perimeter spacing, but struggled to navigate screens on the defensive end. A few costly rotational errors and defensive breakdowns negated the value of his efficient spot-up shooting. His hustle metrics were strong, yet the overall impact suffered from being targeted in isolation matchups.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Cole Anthony 26.7m
23
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+16.2

Orchestrated the second unit flawlessly by attacking drop coverage and making decisive reads in the pick-and-roll. His ability to balance efficient self-creation with timely kick-outs kept the offense humming at a high rate. The positive impact was cemented by his disciplined shot selection and control over the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/7 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring +16.9
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Bobby Portis 21.2m
11
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Impact was dragged down by an over-reliance on contested mid-range jumpers that stalled offensive possessions. While he secured the defensive glass adequately, his inefficiency as a release valve hurt the team's half-court rhythm. He gave back too much value by forcing the issue against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Scoring +4.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +9.2
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.4

A complete non-factor offensively, failing to punish closeouts or provide necessary floor spacing. Despite offering solid positional defense on the wing, his hesitancy to shoot allowed the opposition to pack the paint without consequences. The stark drop in scoring aggression severely handicapped the lineup's overall spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Kyle Kuzma 17.8m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Slipped into a passive offensive role, attempting very few shots while failing to pressure the rim. The lack of aggression limited his gravity, allowing the defense to cheat off him and crowd the paint. A neutral defensive showing wasn't enough to compensate for his disappearing act on the scoring front.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.4

Struggled to find the pace of the game during a brief stint, immediately giving up an advantage on the defensive end. A rushed offensive possession and poor spacing contributed to a quick negative swing. The coaching staff had to pull him after he failed to execute the basic rotational scheme.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -23.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1