GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 36.3m
32
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+12.2

An absolute masterclass in shot selection and offensive orchestration drove a dominant net rating. He carved up the defense with surgical precision from beyond the arc, generating massive value that easily overshadowed his slight defensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 13/21 (61.9%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +27.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +30.8
Avg player in 36.3m -18.6
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyle Kuzma 35.6m
10
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-13.1

Disastrous hidden metrics completely cratered his overall rating despite adequate defensive numbers. Costly live-ball turnovers and poor offensive spacing allowed the opponent to feast in transition whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 35.6m -18.3
Impact -13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S AJ Green 33.0m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

Defensive breakdowns and poor rotational awareness severely punished the team during his minutes. While his box score looked passable, he bled value by constantly getting targeted in mismatch situations on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 33.0m -16.9
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Gary Trent Jr. 29.9m
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.4

Brick after brick from the perimeter threatened to ruin his night, but he completely redeemed himself on the other end of the floor. Suffocating point-of-attack defense (+8.9) and active hands generated enough stops to keep his overall impact solidly positive.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.4%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.9
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 29.9m -15.5
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
S Myles Turner 29.5m
17
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.7

Dominating the paint on both ends of the floor resulted in a massive spike in his overall effectiveness. He paired highly efficient interior scoring with elite rim protection (+6.5) to completely alter the geometry of the game.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.5
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 29.5m -15.0
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Cole Anthony 21.2m
16
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

Relentless energy and elite hustle metrics (+5.0) were unfortunately offset by erratic decision-making with the basketball. Forced shots in traffic and sloppy ball security ultimately resulted in a slightly negative overall showing.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 34.6%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +5.0
Defense +0.4
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 21.2m -10.9
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Bobby Portis 18.7m
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.9

Providing a tremendous spark off the bench, he anchored the second unit with physical interior play. His excellent defensive positioning (+5.4) and efficient mid-range execution consistently stabilized the lineup during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +31.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.4
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 18.7m -9.6
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Timely shot-making couldn't mask the underlying issues he caused within the defensive scheme. Late closeouts and poor transition awareness allowed the opposition to capitalize, dragging his total impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +26.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 18.3m -9.4
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Amir Coffey 13.5m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Complete offensive invisibility severely limited his usefulness during this rotational stint. Even though he held up well in isolation defense (+2.6), his inability to pressure the rim or space the floor hurt the team's overall flow.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.9%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 13.5m -6.9
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

A brief, uneventful cameo yielded a marginally positive impact primarily through mistake-free basketball. He moved the ball willingly and stayed attached to his man without forcing any action.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -45.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 4.0m -2.2
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
23
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.1

Sheer volume and physical two-way play outweighed his inefficient shooting performance from the floor. He imposed his will on the glass and anchored the perimeter defense (+3.2), driving a highly positive net rating through brute force rather than finesse.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 36.8m -18.9
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Stephen Curry 35.0m
27
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.5

The scoring volume masked underlying inefficiencies that actively hurt the team's momentum. Costly turnovers and defensive lapses in transition ultimately dragged his net impact into the red, negating the value of his perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 35.0m -17.9
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
24
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.7

A massive offensive surge defined his night, as he exploded for significantly more production than his recent baseline by utilizing highly efficient shot selection. His strong defensive positioning (+3.4) and reliable hustle metrics ensured this scoring outburst translated into a positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.6%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 33.8m -17.4
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Draymond Green 32.6m
7
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.7

Despite generating excellent hustle metrics (+3.1), his overall impact plummeted into the negatives. Offensive stagnation and likely hidden costs like live-ball turnovers or defensive breakdowns in transition erased the value of his playmaking.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +0.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 32.6m -16.8
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Quinten Post 9.7m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.1

Failing to register a single basket after a solid two-game stretch severely hampered his brief rotational stint. Empty offensive possessions and forced attempts dragged his net impact down, even with marginal defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense -4.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total -2.2
Avg player in 9.7m -4.9
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.2

Elite defensive rotations (+8.3) salvaged a night where his usual scoring punch completely vanished. Even with his offensive production dropping by more than half, his relentless hustle and perimeter containment kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.3
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 25.9m -13.3
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Al Horford 20.3m
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Phenomenal interior defense (+7.3) wasn't quite enough to overcome a dreadful shooting night. Clanking multiple open looks stalled the offense, neutralizing the immense value he provided as a rim deterrent and hustle player.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -43.5
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +3.2
Defense +7.3
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 20.3m -10.5
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Buddy Hield 16.9m
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

Breaking out of a severe shooting slump provided a much-needed spark for the second unit. Timely perimeter makes and competent defensive positioning allowed him to post a positive net impact in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -21.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 16.9m -8.7
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Will Richard 11.8m
7
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.0

Flawless shot selection and absolute chaos-creation on defense defined this incredibly efficient rotational stint. Generating elite hustle (+5.5) and defensive (+5.0) metrics in just under a quarter of action made him the most impactful per-minute player on the roster.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 121.5%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -35.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +5.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 11.8m -6.0
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

A stark regression from his previous offensive explosion left him as a severe minus during his brief time on the floor. Forced shots and empty possessions completely derailed his rhythm, making him a liability on that end of the court.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -26.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 9.9m -5.1
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Gui Santos 4.0m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Coming off a scorching four-game stretch, he crashed back to earth with a highly ineffective cameo. Poor defensive positioning (-0.8) and a lack of offensive involvement quickly tanked his net score.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +45.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 4.0m -2.0
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

A blink-and-you-miss-it appearance yielded entirely negative results due to an empty offensive possession. He failed to establish his usual defensive menace before being pulled from the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +36.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 3.5m -1.8
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0