GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
37
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+19.6

Unstoppable downhill momentum and elite finishing at the rim engineered a spectacular +19.6 impact score. He completely dismantled the opposing frontcourt by identifying mismatches early in transition and punishing them with sheer physicality. High-level weak-side help defense (+4.5 Def) cemented a truly dominant two-way masterclass.

Shooting
FG 16/22 (72.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 38.7%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +29.3
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.5
Raw total +38.1
Avg player in 33.2m -18.5
Impact +19.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S Gary Trent Jr. 30.8m
11
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.8

Poor off-ball awareness and missed defensive assignments severely undercut his decent shooting efficiency. He frequently lost his man on back-door cuts, surrendering high-value opportunities that erased his offensive contributions. A lack of physicality in fighting through screens further compounded his negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 30.8m -17.3
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Myles Turner 30.2m
5
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.7

Elite rim deterrence (+8.7 Def) narrowly kept his overall rating above water despite a catastrophic shooting night. He completely abandoned the interior on offense, settling for contested pick-and-pop threes that routinely stalled out possessions. However, his ability to alter shots and anchor the drop coverage prevented the opponent from capitalizing on his offensive vanishing act.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +27.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +8.7
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 30.2m -17.0
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S Ryan Rollins 26.1m
25
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+19.2

Sizzling perimeter shot-making and suffocating point-of-attack pressure yielded a massive +19.2 overall rating. He completely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow by fighting over screens and blowing up dribble hand-offs. On the other end, his flawless shot selection and decisive drives punished rotating defenders all night long.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.7%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +8.6
Raw total +33.9
Avg player in 26.1m -14.7
Impact +19.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S AJ Green 23.6m
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

A complete lack of playmaking and on-ball defensive resistance pushed his overall rating into the negative. While he executed his floor-spacing role perfectly by knocking down open catch-and-shoot looks, he was relentlessly hunted on switches. Opponents isolated him on the perimeter, easily bypassing his coverage to collapse the defense.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +27.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +5.3
Defense +0.4
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 23.6m -13.2
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Cole Anthony 24.4m
4
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
-8.6

Reckless decision-making and forced perimeter attempts cratered his net impact score. He repeatedly drove into congested paint areas, resulting in wild kick-outs and live-ball turnovers that fueled transition run-outs. The high assist volume was entirely negated by how heavily his poor shot selection disrupted the team's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 24.4m -13.7
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

A complete lack of peripheral contributions severely punished his overall rating despite highly efficient shooting. Failing to secure a single rebound or generate any secondary playmaking left massive voids in the team's rotation. He essentially operated as a stationary target, offering zero resistance on the glass or as a connective passer.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.2
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 21.3m -11.9
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Kyle Kuzma 19.6m
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.5

Extreme offensive passivity and a failure to establish any scoring gravity resulted in a steep negative rating. He floated around the perimeter without aggressively attacking closeouts, allowing his defender to freely roam and double-team the primary ball-handlers. Even with decent rebounding effort, his inability to bend the defense made him an offensive liability.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +3.3
Defense +1.3
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 19.6m -11.0
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Bobby Portis 16.3m
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Forcing contested mid-range jumpers early in the shot clock slightly dragged down his overall impact. His tendency to stop the ball and isolate disrupted the team's overarching offensive flow. Fortunately, active hands in the post and solid defensive positioning (+3.4 Def) kept the damage to a minimum.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.4
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 16.3m -9.1
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Amir Coffey 14.7m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Disciplined off-ball movement and mistake-free execution drove a solid positive impact in limited minutes. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns by aggressively cutting baseline for high-percentage finishes. By staying within his role and executing timely rotations (+2.2 Def), he provided excellent stabilizing minutes for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.6%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 14.7m -8.2
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 39.2m
24
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.2

High-end two-way execution fueled a stellar +7.2 overall rating. His ability to consistently break down the primary defender without forcing low-percentage looks anchored the half-court offense. A steady diet of timely weak-side rotations and contested closeouts kept the defensive metrics firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.9%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Offense +24.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +29.2
Avg player in 39.2m -22.0
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.4

An inability to convert around the basket dragged his net rating into the gutter. He routinely forced contested post-ups into double teams, resulting in empty trips that killed the team's momentum. While his rim-protection and active rebounding (+4.7 Hustle) were bright spots, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions defined his night.

Shooting
FG 2/12 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +4.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 35.4m -19.9
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jalen Brunson 34.8m
36
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.6

Relentless rim-pressure and elite mid-range footwork powered a massive +12.6 overall rating. He repeatedly targeted drop coverages, using hostage dribbles to create high-quality looks in the paint. Surprisingly robust defensive metrics (+4.5) stemmed from his willingness to sacrifice his body and draw crucial momentum-shifting charges.

Shooting
FG 14/25 (56.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 34.9%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +22.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +32.1
Avg player in 34.8m -19.5
Impact +12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S OG Anunoby 33.5m
9
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.6

Offensive struggles completely tanked his overall impact despite commendable defensive effort. Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers short-circuited multiple possessions and allowed the defense to leak out in transition. His strong point-of-attack pressure (+2.6 Def) couldn't salvage the massive negative swing from his bricked spot-up attempts.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 36.5%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 33.5m -18.9
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Landry Shamet 29.8m
16
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Excellent spacing and decisive trigger mechanics generated a solid positive impact. By immediately punishing defensive drop coverages from beyond the arc, he forced constant schematic adjustments. Active hands in passing lanes (+3.8 Hustle) provided just enough secondary value to offset his lighter on-ball responsibilities.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 29.8m -16.7
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Hart 26.3m
3
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.2

Off-the-charts hustle metrics (+10.2) single-handedly rescued an otherwise dreadful offensive performance. He generated immense hidden value by extending possessions with relentless offensive rebounding and diving for loose balls. A refusal to take open catch-and-shoot looks stagnated the offense, but his chaotic defensive energy neutralized the damage.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +10.2
Defense +5.8
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 26.3m -14.8
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

A lack of secondary playmaking and defensive resistance resulted in a slight negative rating despite efficient shot-making. He operated with tunnel vision on isolation sets, freezing out teammates and stalling ball movement. The scoring punch was undeniable, but his tendency to die on screens gave those points right back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -13.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 17.0m -9.5
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Operating strictly as a screen-setter and rim-runner left him with a marginal negative impact. He provided zero scoring gravity, allowing opposing bigs to aggressively camp in the paint and clog driving lanes. However, his disciplined verticality at the rim (+2.9 Def) prevented the backup unit from bleeding easy layups.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.3%
Net Rtg -26.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 12.1m -6.7
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyler Kolek 11.4m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

Point-of-attack defensive liabilities (-1.6 Def) dragged down his overall rating in limited minutes. Opposing guards easily turned the corner on him, forcing the defense into emergency rotations. He showed flashes of competent pick-and-roll orchestration, but the defensive bleed was too severe to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 11.4m -6.4
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Barely saw the floor during a fleeting garbage-time cameo. There was not enough court time to register any meaningful statistical footprint. His slight negative grade is merely statistical noise from a single empty possession.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.6m -0.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0