GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 33.9m
24
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.6

Heavy usage and high shot volume yielded a big box score (+13.6), but inefficiency from the floor limited his actual net impact to just +0.6. He forced too many contested mid-range pull-ups, stalling the offensive flow despite showing solid defensive effort (+4.2).

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg -35.0
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 33.9m -20.3
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Myles Turner 30.1m
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

Despite excellent rim protection metrics (+5.0), his overall impact plummeted to -3.6 largely due to settling for contested perimeter jumpers. His inability to punish switches on the inside allowed the opposition to dictate the physical tone of the game.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -35.9
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.0
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 30.1m -18.1
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S AJ Green 28.4m
15
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

High-volume three-point shooting boosted his box score, but defensive invisibility (+0.0) dragged his net rating into the red (-1.1). Opponents relentlessly targeted him in isolation, completely neutralizing the value of his perimeter floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +5.6
Defense 0.0
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 28.4m -17.0
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Bobby Portis 25.2m
18
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.5

Catching fire from the perimeter created a massive +18.7 box impact and propelled his overall rating to +8.5. He ruthlessly exploited mismatches in the pick-and-pop, forcing opposing bigs to step out of the paint and disrupting their defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -28.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +18.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 25.2m -15.1
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kyle Kuzma 16.1m
13
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.2

A balanced scoring attack generated a strong +9.3 box score, but his overall impact flattened out to +0.2. A lack of defensive playmaking and minimal hustle stats meant his value was entirely tied to his shot-making, which wasn't enough to swing the game.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg -35.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 16.1m -9.7
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.4

A staggering -8.4 total impact highlights how much his offensive passivity and poor shooting hurt the team's half-court spacing. Defenders blatantly sagged off him to clog the driving lanes, rendering his decent hustle and defensive metrics moot.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.3
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 28.9m -17.3
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Jericho Sims 23.7m
6
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.5

Elite defensive positioning (+6.4) was overshadowed by a negative total impact (-1.5) caused by a complete lack of offensive gravity. He failed to make himself a threat in the dunker spot, allowing the opposing center to freely roam and protect the rim.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.4
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 23.7m -14.3
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

A sharp decline in scoring volume and dreadful defensive metrics (-0.8) resulted in a brutal -6.7 net impact. He was consistently late on closeouts and failed to generate the perimeter pressure needed to disrupt the opponent's ball movement.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 18.6m -11.1
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Cole Anthony 14.2m
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.5

Errant decision-making and poor shot selection cratered his box score (-6.8) and overall impact (-7.5). Despite bringing good energy on defense (+4.1), his inability to organize the second-unit offense led to a disastrous stretch for the bench.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense -6.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.1
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 14.2m -8.6
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
Gary Harris 12.1m
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Low usage didn't stop him from posting a positive +1.8 impact, driven entirely by smart, mistake-free basketball. He executed his defensive assignments perfectly (+2.7) and kept the ball moving, proving that blending in can sometimes be a net positive.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 3.4%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.7
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 12.1m -7.3
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.1

Making the absolute most of a tiny two-minute window, he drilled his only look to secure a +2.1 impact. His quick trigger from deep provided an instant, albeit brief, offensive spark before heading back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +80.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense +3.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 2.4m -1.4
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Drawing fouls to get on the board without officially taking a shot, he managed a +1.1 impact in extremely limited action. His chaotic energy disrupted the opponent's rhythm just enough during a brief garbage-time cameo.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +80.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 2.4m -1.4
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Pete Nance 2.4m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.8

Flashing immediate value (+2.8) by knocking down a three and holding his ground defensively (+1.2), he made the most of a short stint. He maximized his limited touches by spacing the floor perfectly in transition.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +80.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 2.4m -1.4
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Mark Sears 1.6m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

A missed shot in under two minutes of play resulted in a negligible -0.5 impact. He simply didn't have enough time to influence the game's flow, though he avoided making any glaring defensive mistakes (+0.9).

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +150.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense -0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 1.6m -1.0
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 32.6m
29
pts
8
reb
10
ast
Impact
+11.1

Total offensive mastery resulted in a game-high +11.1 net impact. Dictating the tempo perfectly out of the pick-and-roll, he balanced aggressive downhill drives with high-level playmaking while contributing surprisingly stout defensive resistance (+5.5).

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 34.8%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +21.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +5.5
Raw total +30.6
Avg player in 32.6m -19.5
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Duncan Robinson 28.1m
15
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.7

Scorching perimeter efficiency skyrocketed his box impact to +15.4 as he punished defenders for going under screens. Surprisingly, he also added massive value defensively (+6.5) by executing flawless weak-side rotations and staying in front of his matchups.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.5
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 28.1m -16.7
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ausar Thompson 27.9m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Elite hustle (+9.3) and defensive metrics (+5.1) drove his positive impact despite a quiet scoring night. His relentless activity on the margins, particularly in loose-ball situations, kept his overall value afloat.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +9.3
Defense +5.1
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 27.9m -16.7
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jalen Duren 27.4m
19
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.4

Continuing a dominant streak of high-percentage finishing, his interior gravity generated a strong +10.8 box metric. He anchored the paint effectively, though his overall net impact was slightly muted by giving back some value on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +3.3
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 27.4m -16.3
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tobias Harris 23.0m
18
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.0

Hyper-efficient shot selection fueled a massive +16.6 box score impact in limited minutes. He consistently capitalized on defensive rotations to find clean looks from deep, punishing the opposition whenever they lost track of him.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +56.7
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 23.0m -13.8
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Despite solid shooting efficiency and decent defensive metrics, his overall impact fell into the negative (-1.4). Subtle spacing issues and a lack of rebounding dominance in his minutes allowed the opposition to control the glass and generate second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.3
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 23.4m -13.9
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.3

Continued offensive struggles and bricked perimeter shots severely tanked his net impact (-6.3). Even though his defensive energy (+4.0) was commendable, his inability to space the floor allowed defenders to pack the paint against his teammates.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.0
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 16.8m -10.0
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaden Ivey 15.4m
10
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.2

Quick, decisive drives to the rim fueled a positive +6.8 box score impact during his short stint. He maintained a net positive rating by avoiding the reckless turnovers that sometimes plague his transition game.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 15.4m -9.2
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.2

A massive drop in offensive volume compared to his recent stretch limited his overall influence, resulting in a near-neutral +0.2 total. He managed to stay afloat by taking only high-percentage looks and contributing steady on-ball defense.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.0
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 13.3m -8.0
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Caris LeVert 13.1m
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Poor shot selection and clunky isolation attempts dragged his total impact down to -2.4. While he provided some defensive resistance (+3.5), his inability to find an offensive rhythm stalled the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 13.1m -7.9
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Perfect shooting from the field couldn't save his negative overall impact (-3.5) due to poor defensive positioning (-1.6). He was consistently beaten on back-door cuts, giving up easy layups that quickly erased his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +18.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.6
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 12.5m -7.4
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 4.5m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Relegated to a very brief appearance, his usual high-efficiency scoring was absent, but he still squeezed out a slight positive impact (+0.7). A couple of timely hustle plays and solid screen-setting kept his short shift productive.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -83.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 4.5m -2.7
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Barely seeing the floor, he generated a negative impact (-1.2) entirely through a quick opponent run during his shift. He failed to register a single positive metric, essentially serving as a cardio participant in garbage time.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -110.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.0m -1.2
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0