GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
32
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.3

Relentless downhill attacks overwhelmed the interior defense and generated a massive positive rating. He consistently collapsed the paint to create high-percentage looks, anchoring the squad through sheer physical dominance and timely defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 13/18 (72.2%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 38.2%
Net Rtg -24.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +21.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.4
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 31.6m -15.3
Impact +12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Myles Turner 30.2m
3
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

Elite rim protection and strong hustle metrics were ultimately overshadowed by an unusually passive offensive night. Failing to punish smaller defenders in the post allowed the opposition to cheat off him, stalling the half-court execution and dragging his total impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 7.6%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +4.9
Defense +3.7
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 30.2m -14.7
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ryan Rollins 27.2m
10
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.5

Inefficient isolation attempts and poor perimeter shooting dragged his overall rating down significantly. Despite commendable effort on the defensive end, his inability to finish through contact resulted in too many empty trips that stalled the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.2%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.5
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 27.2m -13.3
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S AJ Green 25.1m
15
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

Elite floor spacing drove his positive impact, as he relentlessly punished defensive lapses with pure catch-and-shoot execution from deep. Sneaky off-ball movement and solid positional defense ensured he was a net positive during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.7
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 25.1m -12.3
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyle Kuzma 19.6m
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-17.9

Horrendous shot selection from the perimeter completely tanked his value, resulting in a team-worst impact score. Forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock repeatedly derailed the offensive flow and allowed the opposition to leak out in transition.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 7.3%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -40.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense -7.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Raw total -8.4
Avg player in 19.6m -9.5
Impact -17.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gary Harris 26.2m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Low offensive usage limited his ability to positively influence the game, even though he knocked down a couple of timely outside shots. He struggled to navigate screens on the other end, leading to defensive breakdowns that ultimately tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.8
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 26.2m -12.8
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
13
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.4

A heavy reliance on contested perimeter jump shots yielded middling results and a negative overall impact. Poor defensive awareness allowed his matchups to consistently blow by him, negating any value he provided as a floor spacer.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -55.1
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +7.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -2.2
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 23.9m -11.7
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bobby Portis 17.9m
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

A perfectly neutral impact score reflected a balanced but unspectacular stint off the bench. While he stretched the floor effectively from the corners, defensive limitations in the pick-and-roll kept him from shifting the game's momentum in either direction.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.3
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 17.9m -8.8
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Cole Anthony 17.7m
0
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.3

Playmaking and defensive intensity kept him viable, but a brutal shooting performance ultimately dragged his impact into the negative. Missing every attempt from the field allowed defenders to sag off and aggressively clog the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.0
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 17.7m -8.5
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.4

Maximized a brief appearance by setting bone-crushing screens and executing flawless defensive rotations. His willingness to do the dirty work without demanding touches provided a highly efficient, low-maintenance boost to the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -47.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.4
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 7.8m -3.7
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

A rushed perimeter attempt and defensive miscommunications defined a rough, short-lived appearance. He failed to match the game's intensity, quickly bleeding points and earning a steep negative rating in under four minutes of action.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -34.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense -4.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -4.8
Avg player in 3.6m -1.7
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Injected immediate defensive energy into the closing minutes to secure a slight positive rating. His hyper-aggressive closeouts disrupted the opponent's rhythm during a brief garbage-time cameo.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 3.1m -1.5
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Made the most of his limited run by confidently drilling his only look from deep. This quick burst of spacing provided a clean, mistake-free boost to the end-of-bench unit.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 3.1m -1.5
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Mark Sears 3.1m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Attacked the basket decisively during his short stint, converting his attempts in the paint. His aggressive mindset capitalized on relaxed garbage-time defense to notch a marginally positive impact score.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 44.4%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 3.1m -1.5
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 38.2m
41
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+25.3

Total mastery of the offensive system resulted in a monstrous overall impact, dictated by his ability to hit contested step-backs and manipulate defensive rotations. He surprisingly paired this scoring barrage with elite defensive positioning, completely overwhelming his individual matchups across heavy minutes.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 18/20 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.7%
USG% 35.6%
Net Rtg +33.6
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Offense +29.3
Hustle +6.0
Defense +8.7
Raw total +44.0
Avg player in 38.2m -18.7
Impact +25.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Jake LaRavia 36.5m
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.8

A disastrous shooting performance derailed his night as he bricked nearly every attempt from the floor. While he provided commendable hustle and defensive resistance, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions proved too costly for the lineup to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/10 (10.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 18.4%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +37.4
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 36.5m -17.8
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Austin Reaves 36.1m
25
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+5.2

Lethal perimeter shot-making fueled a stellar offensive rating, as he consistently punished defensive rotations from deep. While his defensive contributions were relatively modest, his ability to generate high-quality looks kept the offense humming throughout his heavy minutes.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.5
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 36.1m -17.6
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Deandre Ayton 28.4m
20
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.8

Elite interior finishing drove a massive positive impact, continuing a dominant streak of high-efficiency performances. His physical presence in the paint yielded strong hustle and defensive metrics, effectively anchoring the frontcourt on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +27.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +5.8
Defense +5.4
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 28.4m -13.8
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Bronny James 9.9m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

A brief stint was defined by defensive activity that partially offset his complete lack of offensive production. Missing his perimeter attempts highlighted an ongoing struggle to find a scoring rhythm, ultimately dragging his overall impact slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 9.9m -4.8
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Stifling perimeter defense was the primary engine behind his positive rating, as he locked down opposing wings for extended stretches. Though his outside shot wasn't falling at a high clip, his timely cuts and off-ball movement prevented the offense from stagnating when he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg +38.8
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +12.2
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 33.8m -16.5
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
Maxi Kleber 25.0m
3
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.3

Extreme passivity on offense doomed his overall impact, as he essentially removed himself from the scoring equation by refusing to look at the rim. A lack of defensive resistance further compounded the issue, allowing opponents to exploit his matchups and generate easy looks.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 1.7%
Net Rtg +46.7
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 25.0m -12.2
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 16.7m
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.4

High-energy rim running and vertical spacing maximized his brief time on the court, continuing a highly efficient stretch of games. He altered multiple shots around the basket to significantly boost his defensive metrics, proving highly effective in his specialized frontcourt role.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +31.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.6
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 16.7m -8.1
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

A complete lack of offensive involvement sunk his rating during a short rotation stint, as he failed to attempt a single shot. Generating zero hustle plays and minimal defensive disruption meant he was essentially a ghost while on the floor, dragging down the unit's net impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -64.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Offense -3.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -3.1
Avg player in 7.7m -3.8
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Capitalized on a brief cameo by aggressively converting his lone opportunity at the rim. This short burst of energy provided a minor positive bump to the lineup without committing any glaring mistakes.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +46.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 4.7m -2.3
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.7

Sparked a quick positive swing by immediately hunting his shot from beyond the arc the moment he checked in. Active hands on defense during his three minutes of action further padded his surprisingly high impact score for such a short stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +41.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 2.9m -1.3
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0