GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 40.5m
32
pts
6
reb
14
ast
Impact
+14.5

Masterfully manipulated the pick-and-roll, consistently finding cutters with pinpoint pocket passes. His relentless downhill pressure compromised the defense all night, generating high-quality looks that heavily drove his massive positive rating.

Shooting
FG 13/26 (50.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 34.4%
Net Rtg -16.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.5m
Offense +23.7
Hustle +5.9
Defense +5.6
Raw total +35.2
Avg player in 40.5m -20.7
Impact +14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kyle Kuzma 37.6m
17
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.3

Bogged down the half-court offense by repeatedly forcing isolation mid-range jumpers against set defenses. A costly string of live-ball turnovers in the third quarter directly fueled a devastating opponent transition run, tanking his net impact.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.7
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 37.6m -19.2
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S AJ Green 35.8m
9
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

Targeted and exploited in isolation on the defensive end, erasing the value of his efficient perimeter shooting. His inability to stay in front of quicker guards forced constant help rotations, leading directly to wide-open corner threes for the opposition.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.3
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 35.8m -18.3
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Myles Turner 28.4m
14
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

Anchored the paint effectively by altering multiple drives and securing crucial contested defensive boards. While his perimeter stroke was streaky, his willingness to space the floor pulled the opposing center out of the lane and facilitated driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.9
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 28.4m -14.5
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Bobby Portis 27.7m
19
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.9

Punished mismatches in the post with remarkable efficiency and decisive footwork. His aggressive rim-runs in early offense forced the defense to collapse, opening up the perimeter even when he didn't record a direct assist.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -28.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 27.7m -14.0
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.2

Floated around the perimeter without applying any meaningful rim pressure or off-ball movement. A complete lack of engagement on the glass and lazy transition defense allowed the opponent to generate crucial second-chance points.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +0.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 38.4m -19.6
Impact -14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Cole Anthony 20.8m
5
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-8.0

Overdribbling and forced entry passes resulted in momentum-killing turnovers that sparked opponent fast breaks. Even though he facilitated well at times, his erratic decision-making and poor shot selection ultimately derailed the second unit's offense.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +3.7
Defense +2.2
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 20.8m -10.6
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Gary Harris 19.9m
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

Passed up multiple open catch-and-shoot opportunities, stalling the offensive flow and forcing late-clock bailouts. His defensive rotations were a step slow, allowing opposing wings to establish deep post position and score easily.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 2.3%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.9
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 19.9m -10.3
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jericho Sims 15.9m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Struggled to navigate screen actions defensively, frequently finding himself caught in no-man's land during drop coverage. While he finished his limited lob opportunities, his inability to protect the rim effectively resulted in a net negative stint.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 15.9m -8.1
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 46.6m
54
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+34.2

Completely dismantled the opposing drop coverage by relentlessly attacking the pick-and-roll with elite burst. This staggering offensive production was paired with suffocating ball pressure, turning live-ball steals into immediate fast-break momentum.

Shooting
FG 18/30 (60.0%)
3PT 6/15 (40.0%)
FT 12/14 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 74.7%
USG% 36.0%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 46.6m
Offense +36.8
Hustle +8.2
Defense +13.1
Raw total +58.1
Avg player in 46.6m -23.9
Impact +34.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 5
S VJ Edgecombe 38.2m
12
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.5

Empty volume defined this outing, as forced mid-range pull-ups repeatedly derailed the half-court offense. While he secured a high number of uncontested boards, his sluggish closeouts on the perimeter allowed open looks that heavily dragged down his net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 38.2m -19.5
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Justin Edwards 31.4m
7
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.0

Persistent bricking from the perimeter allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. Despite commendable point-of-attack defense that generated multiple deflections, his inability to punish closeouts ultimately cratered his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +5.1
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 31.4m -16.1
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Paul George 24.7m
21
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.4

Dictated the flow of the game through suffocating wing defense and timely weak-side rotations. His highly efficient shot selection, particularly off the catch, punished defensive lapses and fueled a massive positive swing during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.3%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +7.0
Defense +9.6
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 24.7m -12.7
Impact +15.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Andre Drummond 18.3m
3
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Struggled to finish through contact around the rim, leaving crucial scoring opportunities on the board. He salvaged his overall rating slightly by dominating the defensive glass and altering a handful of interior attempts during a tight second-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +3.9
Defense +3.3
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 18.3m -9.4
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
14
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.4

Settled far too often for heavily contested above-the-break threes instead of attacking scrambling closeouts. Although he maintained solid defensive positioning, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions severely handicapped the unit's overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 38.8m -19.8
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.5

Embraced a pure glue-guy role by setting bone-crushing screens and executing flawless defensive rotations. His willingness to do the dirty work without demanding touches kept the offensive flow intact and stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 1.4%
Net Rtg +27.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.3
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 28.9m -14.8
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
0
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.7

Offensive hesitation led to multiple blown layups and killed the momentum of several promising possessions. He managed to scrape together some value through active hands in the passing lanes, but the complete lack of scoring gravity made him a liability.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 14.4m -7.3
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jared McCain 12.7m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Trigger-happy shot selection disrupted the team's offensive rhythm during a crucial second-quarter stretch. He provided virtually zero resistance at the point of attack, allowing opposing guards to easily blow by him and collapse the defense.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 12.7m -6.5
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Failed to establish any rhythm during his brief stint, rushing a pair of contested looks early in the shot clock. A lack of meaningful weak-side activity or screen-setting rendered him essentially invisible on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 10.9m -5.6
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0