GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
37
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.6

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
Offense +25.9
Hustle +4.7
Defense +4.6
Raw total +35.2
Avg player in 35.6m -20.6
Impact +14.6
How is this calculated?
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
+1.2

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
Offense +7.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +9.7
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 33.7m -19.5
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
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
+1.1

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
Offense +13.7
Hustle +3.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 30.1m -17.6
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
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
-0.9

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
Offense +7.5
Hustle +3.9
Defense +4.7
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 29.4m -17.0
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
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
-11.8

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
Offense -2.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 26.4m -15.3
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
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
-4.6

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
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 29.6m -17.1
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
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
+5.1

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
Offense +9.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.6
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 23.6m -13.6
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
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
+3.9

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
Offense +4.0
Hustle +7.5
Defense +2.8
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 17.9m -10.4
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
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
-4.9

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
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 13.6m -8.0
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
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
+2.1

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
Offense +18.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.8
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 39.7m -22.9
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
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
-0.9

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
Offense +9.4
Hustle +3.2
Defense +8.2
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 37.5m -21.7
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
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
+3.8

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
Offense +23.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 37.4m -21.7
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
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
-9.0

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
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.3
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 31.2m -18.1
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
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
-7.7

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
Offense -2.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.7
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 17.1m -9.9
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
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
+7.8

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
Offense +9.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +9.9
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 29.2m -16.9
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
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
+5.2

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
Offense +16.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 22.3m -12.9
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
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
-4.2

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
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.3
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 18.9m -11.0
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
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
+4.6

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
Offense +5.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 6.8m -3.9
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1