Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIL lead HOU lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
HOU 2P — 3P —
MIL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 169 attempts

HOU HOU Shot-making Δ

Durant Hard 11/15 +10.2
Sengun Open 10/15 +3.9
Smith Jr. 5/15 -3.8
Thompson Open 6/13 -3.4
Sheppard Hard 6/10 +6.8
Eason 3/8 -2.6
Adams Open 5/7 +0.4
Capela Open 2/4 -1.6
Okogie Hard 0/3 -3.1

MIL MIL Shot-making Δ

Antetokounmpo Open 14/25 -3.7
Rollins 7/12 +3.6
Turner 6/11 +2.0
Anthony 5/9 +1.7
Kuzma Hard 4/7 +4.0
Trent Jr. Hard 3/6 +3.4
Green Hard 1/5 -2.1
Portis 4/4 +4.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
HOU
MIL
48/90 Field Goals 44/79
53.3% Field Goal % 55.7%
10/26 3-Pointers 13/29
38.5% 3-Point % 44.8%
16/21 Free Throws 14/24
76.2% Free Throw % 58.3%
61.5% True Shooting % 64.2%
59 Total Rebounds 34
20 Offensive 7
30 Defensive 20
24 Assists 25
1.33 Assist/TO Ratio 1.92
17 Turnovers 13
8 Steals 11
3 Blocks 6
19 Fouls 20
58 Points in Paint 54
12 Fast Break Pts 21
19 Points off TOs 30
18 Second Chance Pts 10
38 Bench Points 34
8 Largest Lead 14
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Giannis Antetokounmpo
37 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 35.6 MIN
+26.09
2
Kevin Durant
31 PTS · 3 REB · 7 AST · 37.4 MIN
+22.91
3
Reed Sheppard
16 PTS · 0 REB · 2 AST · 29.2 MIN
+18.38
4
Amen Thompson
14 PTS · 8 REB · 5 AST · 37.5 MIN
+16.63
5
Alperen Sengun
23 PTS · 11 REB · 7 AST · 39.7 MIN
+15.24
6
Myles Turner
13 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 33.7 MIN
+14.81
7
Steven Adams
12 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 22.3 MIN
+14.1
8
Ryan Rollins
19 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 30.1 MIN
+14.02
9
Bobby Portis
11 PTS · 1 REB · 4 AST · 23.6 MIN
+14.0
10
Gary Trent Jr.
9 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 29.4 MIN
+10.67
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 G. Antetokounmpo Free Throw 2 of 2 (37 PTS) 122–115
Q4 0:01 TEAM offensive REBOUND 122–114
Q4 0:01 MISS G. Antetokounmpo Free Throw 1 of 2 122–114
Q4 0:01 J. Okogie personal FOUL (1 PF) (Antetokounmpo 2 FT) 122–114
Q4 0:01 G. Antetokounmpo REBOUND (Off:4 Def:4) 122–114
Q4 0:02 MISS R. Rollins 26' pullup 3PT 122–114
Q4 0:13 K. Durant Free Throw 2 of 2 (31 PTS) 122–114
Q4 0:13 K. Durant Free Throw 1 of 2 (30 PTS) 121–114
Q4 0:13 A. Green personal FOUL (3 PF) (Durant 2 FT) 120–114
Q4 0:17 R. Rollins bad pass out-of-bounds TURNOVER (2 TO) 120–114
Q4 0:23 A. Sengun Free Throw 1 of 1 (23 PTS) 120–114
Q4 0:23 M. Turner shooting personal FOUL (4 PF) (Sengun 1 FT) 119–114
Q4 0:23 A. Sengun driving Layup (22 PTS) 119–114
Q4 0:31 A. Sengun REBOUND (Off:4 Def:7) 117–114
Q4 0:37 MISS G. Antetokounmpo Free Throw 2 of 2 117–114

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

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
37
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+25.8

Relentless downhill drives and sheer physical dominance in the paint shattered the opponent's interior defense. His ability to consistently collapse the defense and finish through contact drove a massive positive impact score.

Shooting
FG 14/25 (56.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 9/14 (64.3%)
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 43.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Scoring +25.9
Creation +5.6
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +9.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Myles Turner 33.7m
13
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.3

Elite rim protection defined his evening, as he consistently altered shots and deterred drives into the paint to generate a massive defensive rating. While his offensive volume was modest, his defensive anchoring provided a crucial stabilizing force for the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -29.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +7.6
Defense +3.9
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 1
S Ryan Rollins 30.1m
19
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.6

Slicing through the defense with decisive drives kept the offense humming during his shifts. However, defensive lapses at the point of attack gave back much of the value he generated on the scoring end, resulting in a muted overall impact.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 71.3%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -28.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring +14.8
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Gary Trent Jr. 29.4m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Provided decent floor spacing with his catch-and-shoot gravity, but struggled to impact the game when chased off the line. A lack of secondary playmaking and defensive presence kept his overall net rating hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -36.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S AJ Green 26.4m
3
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-13.1

A cold shooting night from the perimeter completely neutralized his primary value to the offense. The inability to knock down open looks allowed the defense to cheat off him, severely stalling the team's half-court execution and tanking his net score.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring -0.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +3.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Kyle Kuzma 29.6m
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Despite efficient shooting when he did attack, a lack of overall aggression and poor rebounding effort limited his footprint. He floated on the perimeter too often, failing to assert himself physically in key matchups and bleeding value defensively.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Bobby Portis 23.6m
11
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.2

Flawless shooting execution and decisive post moves punished the defense every time he touched the ball. He capitalized on every mismatch, providing a highly efficient scoring punch that stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.5%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Cole Anthony 17.9m
12
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.2

Relentless energy and timely loose-ball recoveries defined a highly impactful reserve stint. His ability to generate extra possessions through pure hustle perfectly complemented his efficient scoring bursts.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
Amir Coffey 13.6m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.9

A completely passive offensive shift rendered him invisible on that end of the floor. His failure to attempt a single shot or create gravity allowed defenders to roam, dragging down the lineup's overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Alperen Sengun 39.7m
23
pts
11
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.0

Continued his streak of high-efficiency interior scoring, punishing mismatches in the post to drive a strong offensive rating. However, his drop-coverage positioning against the pick-and-roll allowed easy counter-attacks, suppressing his overall net impact.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.7m
Scoring +19.1
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +12.0
Defense -5.3
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 56.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Amen Thompson 37.5m
14
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.1

Defensive versatility was the hallmark of his night, constantly blowing up passing lanes and switching across multiple positions to generate a massive defensive score. Unfortunately, his lack of perimeter gravity allowed defenders to sag off, bogging down the half-court spacing and dragging his net score slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.9%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +10.2
Defense +5.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Kevin Durant 37.4m
31
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+18.5

Elite shot-making efficiency anchored his massive offensive footprint, though defensive lapses in transition kept his overall net score grounded. His ability to hit contested jumpers off the dribble dictated the half-court tempo and masked the points he gave back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 11/15 (73.3%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 81.8%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Scoring +27.6
Creation +4.2
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
16
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

A heavy diet of forced, contested perimeter jumpers tanked his overall impact despite decent effort on the glass. The sheer volume of empty possessions from deep negated his rotational defense and fueled opponent run-outs.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +37.9
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +7.5
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Josh Okogie 17.1m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.8

Completely vanished on the offensive end, failing to create any gravity and missing badly on his few forced attempts. His hustle metrics couldn't compensate for the offensive black hole he created during his rotation minutes, leading to a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg +42.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Scoring -2.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
16
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.9

Perimeter sharpshooting and elite point-of-attack defense fueled a highly productive two-way performance. His knack for perfectly timing closeouts and fighting through screens created a massive positive swing during the second unit's run.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Scoring +13.2
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +8.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
Steven Adams 22.3m
12
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Bruising screen-setting and high-percentage finishing around the rim anchored a highly efficient offensive shift. He controlled the physical real estate in the paint, generating second-chance opportunities that directly translated to a strong positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +7.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tari Eason 18.9m
6
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.3

Settling for above-the-break threes proved disastrous, as his perimeter misses fueled opponent transition opportunities. While he crashed the glass hard, the highly inefficient shot profile heavily weighed down his overall net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -24.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +6.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Made the most of a brief cameo by executing his role perfectly as a lob threat and rim deterrent. His vertical spacing forced the defense to collapse, opening up the floor during a crucial short stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -46.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1