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 177 attempts

MIL MIL Shot-making Δ

Kuzma 7/14 +0.3
Antetokounmpo Open 9/14 -1.4
Rollins 5/13 -4.9
Anthony Hard 5/9 +2.2
Portis Hard 1/8 -6.1
Turner Hard 3/7 +1.9
Prince Hard 0/5 -5.1
Green Hard 3/4 +4.9
Trent Jr. Hard 2/4 +1.7
Sears Hard 1/3 +0.2

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Barnes 9/16 +5.0
Quickley Hard 5/15 -3.1
Barrett Hard 6/12 +3.7
Mamukelashvili 6/12 +2.4
Ingram Hard 6/12 +1.5
Poeltl Open 4/6 +0.8
Dick Hard 3/4 +4.8
Shead Hard 1/4 -0.6
Walter Hard 2/3 +2.2
Murray-Boyles 1/3 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MIL
TOR
37/86 Field Goals 44/91
43.0% Field Goal % 48.4%
11/38 3-Pointers 17/38
28.9% 3-Point % 44.7%
15/21 Free Throws 23/29
71.4% Free Throw % 79.3%
52.5% True Shooting % 61.7%
49 Total Rebounds 60
9 Offensive 10
32 Defensive 40
26 Assists 33
1.73 Assist/TO Ratio 3.30
12 Turnovers 9
5 Steals 8
4 Blocks 6
26 Fouls 23
46 Points in Paint 42
11 Fast Break Pts 27
8 Points off TOs 21
9 Second Chance Pts 15
42 Bench Points 46
3 Largest Lead 32
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Scottie Barnes
23 PTS · 3 REB · 6 AST · 27.5 MIN
+29.75
2
Giannis Antetokounmpo
22 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 23.7 MIN
+19.57
3
RJ Barrett
23 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 31.1 MIN
+18.74
4
Myles Turner
10 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 22.8 MIN
+13.38
5
Sandro Mamukelashvili
15 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 23.5 MIN
+13.12
6
Cole Anthony
12 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 24.2 MIN
+12.8
7
Gradey Dick
14 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 21.9 MIN
+11.68
8
Immanuel Quickley
15 PTS · 6 REB · 7 AST · 26.4 MIN
+11.61
9
Jakob Poeltl
8 PTS · 9 REB · 0 AST · 20.0 MIN
+10.52
10
Jamal Shead
5 PTS · 2 REB · 8 AST · 17.1 MIN
+8.43
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:04 TOR shot clock Team TURNOVER 100–128
Q4 0:28 M. Sears Free Throw 2 of 2 (8 PTS) 100–128
Q4 0:28 M. Sears Free Throw 1 of 2 (7 PTS) 99–128
Q4 0:28 J. Walter personal FOUL (2 PF) (Sears 2 FT) 98–128
Q4 0:40 G. Dick 25' 3PT (14 PTS) (J. Mogbo 2 AST) 98–128
Q4 0:52 G. Harris reverse Layup (2 PTS) (A. Jackson Jr. 2 AST) 98–125
Q4 1:04 J. Sims REBOUND (Off:2 Def:1) 96–125
Q4 1:06 MISS J. Mogbo driving Layup 96–125
Q4 1:25 M. Sears Free Throw 2 of 2 (6 PTS) 96–125
Q4 1:25 M. Sears Free Throw 1 of 2 (5 PTS) 95–125
Q4 1:25 J. Mogbo shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Sears 2 FT) 94–125
Q4 1:36 J. Battle cutting Layup (2 PTS) (J. Mogbo 1 AST) 94–125
Q4 1:46 TEAM defensive REBOUND 94–123
Q4 1:48 MISS M. Sears 26' step back 3PT 94–123
Q4 1:57 G. Harris REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 94–123

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 RJ Barrett 31.1m
23
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+18.5

Drove winning basketball by aggressively attacking the basket and finishing through contact, which collapsed the defense. His defensive intensity was a major plus, as he successfully navigated screens to stay attached to perimeter shooters. Excellent shot selection from beyond the arc kept his offensive efficiency exceptionally high.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 7/12 (58.3%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +16.0
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Brandon Ingram 30.8m
13
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.2

A heavy reliance on contested, isolation mid-range jumpers bogged down the offensive flow and tanked his overall efficiency. While he showed solid engagement on the defensive end, his tendency to hold the ball allowed the opposing defense to set their half-court shell. The negative impact score reflects a stagnant offensive approach that stifled ball movement.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.3%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +27.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense -2.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Scottie Barnes 27.5m
23
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+28.1

Put together a two-way masterclass, completely dictating the game's tempo through elite defensive anticipation and transition playmaking. His massive hustle score reflects a relentless motor, generating crucial extra possessions via deflections and loose ball recoveries. Offensively, he punished mismatches in the post and consistently generated high-quality looks for teammates.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.1%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +40.3
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Scoring +18.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +5.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +9.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 1
15
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+7.4

Struggled mightily with his shooting mechanics, missing several wide-open perimeter looks that depressed his offensive impact. He compensated by pushing the pace and orchestrating the offense, finding cutters with precise passing. Scrappy point-of-attack defense kept his overall rating barely in the green despite the cold shooting night.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jakob Poeltl 20.0m
8
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.5

Anchored the paint effectively, utilizing superb positioning to alter shots and secure defensive rebounds. Though his scoring volume dipped, his high-IQ screen setting and dribble hand-offs were the engine of the half-court offense. He completely neutralized the opposing bigs, ensuring nothing came easy at the rim.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +11.4
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.3

Provided a massive offensive lift by stretching the floor and punishing late closeouts with confident perimeter shooting. His off-ball movement constantly scrambled the defense, creating driving lanes for his teammates. While his defense was merely passable, his elite offensive efficiency easily carried his overall impact into the positive.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +54.3
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +8.9
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gradey Dick 21.9m
14
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.9

Broke out of a severe shooting slump by hunting high-quality catch-and-shoot opportunities in transition. His gravity as a floor spacer opened up the paint, forcing defenders to stick tightly to him on the perimeter. While his defensive impact was minimal, his hyper-efficient shot-making was exactly what the second unit needed.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 105.4%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +32.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring +12.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 17.1m
5
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-0.1

Generated immense value without needing to score by applying relentless, suffocating ball pressure that disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm. His elite hustle metrics reflect a barrage of deflections, drawn charges, and diving for loose balls. He orchestrated the offense brilliantly, prioritizing high-percentage looks for teammates over his own struggling shot.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +43.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.3

Looked completely out of sync offensively, snapping a streak of highly efficient performances by forcing contested interior shots. His inability to finish through traffic led to empty possessions and fueled opponent fast breaks. Defensive miscommunications further compounded his struggles, resulting in a heavily negative impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +22.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Capitalized on his limited minutes by playing with relentless energy, generating crucial second-chance opportunities on the offensive glass. He didn't force the issue offensively, taking only high-percentage shots within the flow of the offense. His high hustle rating underscores a gritty performance that injected life into the rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.6%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +59.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.7

Struggled to find the pace of the game, looking hesitant and passing up opportunities to attack the rim. His negative defensive impact stemmed from poor pick-and-roll coverage, frequently getting caught in no-man's land. The lack of offensive aggression rendered him a liability during his brief stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.3

Was completely invisible during his time on the court, failing to register a single positive hustle or defensive play. His offensive passivity allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team other ball handlers. The negative score reflects a stint defined by a total lack of engagement and impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.3

Failed to establish a rhythm during a short rotation appearance, largely floating on the perimeter without demanding the ball. Defensive lapses, particularly late closeouts on shooters, dragged his overall impact into the negative. He simply didn't generate enough positive plays to offset his defensive mistakes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 28.2m
11
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.9

Strong hustle plays and active hands couldn't salvage a performance marred by poor shot selection and forced offensive possessions. His significant drop in scoring efficiency stemmed from settling for contested mid-range jumpers rather than attacking the rim. Defensive lapses in transition further compounded his negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
22
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+20.5

Utterly dominated the interior by generating relentless rim pressure that warped the opponent's defensive shell. His massive overall impact was driven by high-quality shot selection in the paint and forcing multiple defensive rotations. He consistently leveraged his physical advantages in transition to create easy scoring opportunities before the defense could set.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Scoring +16.9
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +10.2
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Myles Turner 22.8m
10
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.4

Elite rim protection and timely defensive rotations anchored a massive positive defensive impact score. He completely neutralized interior drives, forcing opponents into low-percentage perimeter bail-out shots. A noticeable uptick in offensive assertiveness provided a crucial secondary scoring punch that kept the floor spaced.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Scoring +6.9
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Gary Trent Jr. 21.4m
6
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.1

A sharp decline in offensive aggression severely limited his overall footprint, as he passed up looks he normally takes. Despite positive hustle metrics, his inability to generate his usual scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the passing lanes. The negative defensive rating highlights how much he struggled to stay in front of his primary assignment.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S AJ Green 16.8m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Excellent perimeter shot-making kept his offensive impact high, but defensive liabilities ultimately dragged his overall score into the red. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation matchups, bleeding points on the other end of the floor. The inability to navigate screens effectively negated the value of his floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -43.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kyle Kuzma 26.6m
18
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Empty calorie production defined his stint, as his scoring volume was heavily offset by momentum-killing turnovers and defensive lapses off the ball. He frequently stalled the offense with prolonged isolation sets that resulted in low-quality attempts late in the shot clock. Despite decent individual defensive metrics, his negative overall rating reflects a disjointed fit within the team's flow.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -28.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +11.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
Cole Anthony 24.2m
12
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.8

Provided a vital spark off the bench by aggressively attacking closeouts and creating high-leverage scoring chances. His positive defensive impact was fueled by fighting through screens and applying consistent point-of-attack pressure. Smart decision-making in the pick-and-roll maximized his offensive footprint without forcing bad shots.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -37.0
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-19.2

An absolute offensive void, his inability to connect on any perimeter looks completely tanked his impact score. Defenders routinely ignored him on the wing, which destroyed the team's spacing and bogged down half-court sets. Sluggish closeouts on the defensive end only worsened a disastrous two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Scoring -4.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -5.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Bobby Portis 20.2m
2
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.3

A brutal shooting slump torpedoed his offensive value, as he repeatedly forced contested looks early in the shot clock. He managed to salvage some value through relentless work on the defensive glass and active interior rotations. However, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions ultimately drove his impact score deep into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 12.5%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -32.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Scoring -3.2
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Amir Coffey 10.2m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.0

Failed to make any meaningful imprint on the game during his brief rotation minutes. He was a step slow on defensive rotations, frequently getting caught out of position and yielding open driving lanes. The lack of offensive assertiveness made him a liability when the team needed secondary creation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.6%
Net Rtg -33.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Kept his head above water entirely through disciplined perimeter defense and fighting over screens. His offensive rhythm was virtually non-existent, passing up open catch-and-shoot opportunities that he usually converts. Ultimately, his ability to contain dribble penetration neutralized his lack of scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -39.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

Offered almost zero rim pressure as a roll man, allowing the opposing defense to aggressively trap the ball handler. His screen-setting was largely ineffective, resulting in stagnant offensive sets during his stint. While he didn't make glaring defensive mistakes, his overall passivity dragged down the unit's energy.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -57.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.9m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.7

Made his mark purely as a defensive disruptor, utilizing his length to blow up passing lanes and contest perimeter shots. He was a complete non-factor offensively, but his quick decision-making kept the ball moving. His positive impact stems entirely from his ability to string together stops during a crucial second-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -56.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Mark Sears 4.7m
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Maximized his brief minutes by hunting high-value shots and converting efficiently from deep. He pushed the pace effectively in transition, exploiting a tired defensive unit. His quick burst of scoring provided a clean, positive bump to his overall impact rating.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0