Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIL lead DET lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
DET 2P — 3P —
MIL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 162 attempts

DET DET Shot-making Δ

Cunningham 10/18 +4.4
Duren Open 7/10 +1.1
Harris 7/9 +7.3
Robinson Hard 5/6 +9.2
Ivey 4/6 +2.5
LeVert Hard 2/6 -0.8
Thompson Open 3/6 -1.6
Holland II 2/6 -3.3
Stewart 3/4 +2.0
Jenkins 3/3 +3.9

MIL MIL Shot-making Δ

Rollins 9/21 -1.5
Green Hard 5/12 +3.7
Portis Hard 7/10 +8.6
Kuzma Open 5/10 -1.1
Turner Hard 4/8 +1.1
Jackson Jr. Hard 2/6 -0.6
Trent Jr. Hard 3/5 +3.1
Anthony Hard 2/5 -0.8
Sims Open 3/3 +2.4
Nance Hard 1/1 +1.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
DET
MIL
49/78 Field Goals 43/84
62.8% Field Goal % 51.2%
16/30 3-Pointers 20/43
53.3% 3-Point % 46.5%
15/24 Free Throws 10/12
62.5% Free Throw % 83.3%
72.8% True Shooting % 65.0%
40 Total Rebounds 42
1 Offensive 6
31 Defensive 29
31 Assists 29
2.21 Assist/TO Ratio 1.71
14 Turnovers 15
10 Steals 8
6 Blocks 7
17 Fouls 19
56 Points in Paint 42
15 Fast Break Pts 12
30 Points off TOs 14
2 Second Chance Pts 6
42 Bench Points 35
29 Largest Lead 3
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Cade Cunningham
29 PTS · 8 REB · 10 AST · 32.6 MIN
+23.97
2
Duncan Robinson
15 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 28.2 MIN
+20.63
3
Bobby Portis
18 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 25.2 MIN
+18.87
4
Tobias Harris
18 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 23.0 MIN
+18.65
5
Ryan Rollins
24 PTS · 5 REB · 7 AST · 33.9 MIN
+16.82
6
Jalen Duren
19 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 27.4 MIN
+11.35
7
Myles Turner
11 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 30.1 MIN
+9.6
8
AJ Green
15 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 28.4 MIN
+9.16
9
Kyle Kuzma
13 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 16.1 MIN
+9.15
10
Jaden Ivey
10 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 15.4 MIN
+8.15
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 C. Anthony STEAL (1 STL) 129–116
Q4 0:01 D. Jenkins bad pass TURNOVER (3 TO) 129–116
Q4 0:24 A. Coffey 25' 3PT running (3 PTS) (M. Sears 1 AST) 129–116
Q4 0:27 M. Sears REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 129–113
Q4 0:31 T. Antetokounmpo BLOCK (1 BLK) 129–113
Q4 0:31 MISS A. Thompson driving Layup - blocked 129–113
Q4 0:46 P. Reed REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 129–113
Q4 0:50 MISS M. Sears 25' pullup 3PT 129–113
Q4 0:57 P. Nance REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 129–113
Q4 1:00 MISS P. Reed turnaround Hook 129–113
Q4 1:22 P. Nance 24' 3PT (3 PTS) (A. Coffey 1 AST) 129–113
Q4 1:37 P. Reed Free Throw 2 of 2 (2 PTS) 129–110
Q4 1:37 P. Reed Free Throw 1 of 2 (1 PTS) 128–110
Q4 1:37 T. Antetokounmpo personal FOUL (2 PF) (Reed 2 FT) 127–110
Q4 1:44 T. Antetokounmpo Free Throw 2 of 2 (2 PTS) 127–110

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
S Ryan Rollins 33.9m
24
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+14.9

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
Scoring +15.0
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +5.4
Defense +2.8
Turnovers -7.8
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
+0.5

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
Scoring +7.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.3
Turnovers -2.4
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
+4.3

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
Scoring +9.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
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
+15.7

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
Scoring +15.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +4.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
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
+1.6

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
Scoring +9.2
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
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
-3.2

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
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -3.5
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
-3.7

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
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -5.4
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
-5.4

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
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
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
-13.2

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
Scoring +1.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -11.8
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
-4.3

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
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.1
Turnovers +0.0
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
-4.6

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
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
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
-7.5

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
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
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
-4.3

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
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Mark Sears 1.6m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.0

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
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
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
+22.5

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
Scoring +23.4
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +5.3
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -9.5
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
+17.3

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
Scoring +14.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
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
+1.8

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
Scoring +3.6
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.1
Turnovers +0.0
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
+7.9

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
Scoring +15.1
Creation +3.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -5.9
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
+13.9

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
Scoring +15.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
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
-0.3

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
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.7
Turnovers +0.0
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
-6.7

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
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -3.1
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
+1.5

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
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -3.1
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
-5.1

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
Scoring +7.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -7.1
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
-6.3

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
Scoring +1.8
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
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
-5.3

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
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
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
-6.9

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
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
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
-6.1

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
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -0.2
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0