GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 36.4m
16
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.6

Strong playmaking and active defensive hands were negated by a lack of perimeter gravity and likely ball-security issues. Defenders sagged off him entirely, which clogged the driving lanes for his teammates and stalled the half-court offense. He competed hard on both ends, but the spacing issues he created dragged down his overall net impact.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +4.6
Defense +4.2
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 36.4m -21.9
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Gary Trent Jr. 32.2m
17
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.1

Elite shooting efficiency was completely undone by defensive bleeding and costly turnovers that aren't visible in the shooting splits. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation, giving up blow-by drives that compromised the entire defensive shell. The scoring punch simply couldn't outpace the points he surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.4%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.1
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 32.2m -19.4
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
26
pts
11
reb
8
ast
Impact
+17.8

Utterly dominated the game through sheer physical force, generating massive value by collapsing the defense and creating high-quality looks for teammates. His defensive impact was equally terrifying, functioning as a free safety who blew up multiple actions at the rim. The relentless downhill pressure dictated the terms of engagement on nearly every possession.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 9/14 (64.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +25.9
Hustle +4.3
Defense +6.9
Raw total +37.1
Avg player in 32.2m -19.3
Impact +17.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S AJ Green 29.8m
17
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.8

Spacing the floor effectively wasn't enough to overcome his struggles navigating screens on the defensive end. Opposing guards consistently put him in the action, forcing rotations that led to easy buckets. His hustle metrics were solid, but the structural defensive deficiencies ultimately outweighed his perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +3.7
Defense -1.6
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 29.8m -17.9
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Myles Turner 23.8m
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Despite solid rim protection and floor spacing, his overall impact fell into the negative due to an inability to secure defensive rebounds. Opponents capitalized on his perimeter contests by crashing the offensive glass for second-chance points. He stretched the floor well but gave back that value through lost possessions in the paint.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +3.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 23.8m -14.4
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Bobby Portis 23.1m
16
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.8

Punished mismatches in the post with ruthless efficiency to drive a positive offensive rating. He avoided forcing bad shots, instead letting the offense flow to him and capitalizing on deep seals in the paint. Adequate defensive positioning ensured he didn't give back the points he generated on the block.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.4
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 23.1m -14.0
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kyle Kuzma 21.5m
22
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.8

A pure scoring clinic fueled his positive impact, as he decisively attacked closeouts rather than settling for contested jumpers. He found a rhythm early in transition and maintained that aggression in the half-court without turning the ball over. The lack of defensive resistance didn't matter because his offensive output was overwhelmingly efficient.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.5%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 21.5m -13.0
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Amir Coffey 14.7m
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.4

Provided steady, mistake-free minutes by executing basic rotational assignments and keeping the ball moving. He didn't force any action offensively, instead taking what the defense gave him as a cutter. His positive defensive metrics reflect solid closeouts and an adherence to the team's scheme.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 14.7m -8.9
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Faded into the background offensively, passing up semi-contested looks and allowing the defense to ignore him. His inability to punish rotations crippled the team's spacing during his minutes on the floor. While he didn't make glaring mistakes defensively, the lack of offensive assertion made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 13.3m -8.0
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Cole Anthony 13.1m
3
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-13.1

Impact cratered due to erratic decision-making and forced drives into heavy traffic. He consistently derailed offensive sets by over-dribbling, which led to poor shot quality and transition opportunities going the other way. A complete lack of defensive resistance at the point of attack compounded his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.6
Raw total -5.1
Avg player in 13.1m -8.0
Impact -13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

Checked in for a single second of game time, likely for a specific dead-ball situation. It is impossible to evaluate any impact from this brief appearance. He essentially served as a placeholder for one possession.

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 0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0m -0.0
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S DeMar DeRozan 41.4m
29
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.7

High-volume scoring masked a surprisingly negative overall footprint, largely driven by defensive lapses and likely ball-security issues that fueled transition opportunities. He consistently hunted his mid-range spots effectively, but gave back that value on the other end by failing to contain dribble penetration. The raw offensive output couldn't overcome the structural damage of empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.0%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.4m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.9
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 41.4m -24.9
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Zach LaVine 38.8m
31
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.3

Perimeter shot-making drove a highly positive impact, as he relentlessly punished defenders going under screens. Beyond the perimeter gravity, his engagement at the point of attack defensively was noticeably sharper than usual. Avoiding costly live-ball turnovers allowed his scoring bursts to translate directly into team momentum.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 6/13 (46.2%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.4%
USG% 22.3%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +23.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +28.7
Avg player in 38.8m -23.4
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
24
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.9

Elite point-of-attack defense defined this outing, constantly blowing up pick-and-roll actions before they could materialize. He paired that defensive menace with timely rim pressure, blowing past closeouts to collapse the defense. The massive scoring jump from his recent baseline was just a bonus on top of his disruptive two-way floor game.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.9%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.7
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 37.1m -22.3
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
24
pts
13
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.6

Anchored the offense through relentless high-post dribble hand-offs that continuously compromised the defense. His stellar impact score stems from elite rebounding positioning and generating second-chance opportunities without forcing bad shots. Defensively, he held up exceptionally well in drop coverage to deter drives and close out defensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +22.9
Hustle +4.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +30.8
Avg player in 37.0m -22.2
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 61.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

A brief stint yielded negative returns due to defensive rotations that were consistently a half-step slow. He managed to secure deep post position for a quick finish, but struggled to navigate screens on the other end. The lack of hustle stats in his minutes highlights an inability to disrupt the opponent's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -100.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 5.1m -3.0
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
5
reb
10
ast
Impact
-4.2

Poor shot selection cratered his overall value despite solid hustle metrics and playmaking volume. Settling for early-clock perimeter jumpers bailed out the defense and triggered long rebounds for opponent fast breaks. The relentless rim attacks that usually define his game were replaced by inefficient perimeter hunting.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 33.5m -20.2
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Keon Ellis 16.2m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.1

A classic low-usage, high-impact performance driven entirely by suffocating perimeter defense. He seamlessly navigated off-ball screens to deny catch-and-shoot opportunities, generating immense value without needing offensive touches. His active hands and relentless hustle plays kept possessions alive and disrupted the opponent's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 16.2m -9.8
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.3

Offensive invisibility severely dragged down his impact, as he passed up open looks and allowed his defender to roam freely as a helper. While he chipped in with decent weak-side rotations defensively, playing 4-on-5 on the other end stalled the team's spacing. The inability to punish closeouts made him a net-negative despite adequate effort metrics.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.3%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 15.9m -9.6
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Drew Eubanks 11.1m
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns by consistently making himself available in the dunker spot for high-percentage finishes. His positive impact was entirely derived from offensive efficiency rather than rim protection or rebounding. He executed his role perfectly as a vertical spacer during his brief stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 11.1m -6.6
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Completely neutralized during a short rotational burst after a string of highly efficient games. Opponents successfully pushed him out of his preferred spots on the block, resulting in empty trips and zero offensive gravity. He failed to make up for the lack of touches with defensive playmaking, leaving a slightly negative footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 4.0m -2.4
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0