GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Myles Turner 32.3m
13
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.5

Vital rim deterrence and effective floor spacing pulled the opposing big out of the paint. Despite a clunky shooting night from the perimeter, his defensive anchoring and physical box-outs stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +8.3
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 32.3m -16.8
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
S Ryan Rollins 30.4m
10
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-7.5

Disastrous shooting and forced drives into traffic sunk his overall impact despite generating impressive defensive pressure. Empty possessions constantly stalled the offense, negating his high-level hustle stats.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.6%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -23.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +4.9
Defense +4.7
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 30.4m -15.9
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kyle Kuzma 27.3m
15
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Efficient isolation scoring buoyed his value, though a lack of playmaking limited the ceiling of his offensive impact. Being consistently targeted in pick-and-roll actions forced the defense into uncomfortable rotations that slightly depressed his overall score.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +2.1
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 27.3m -14.1
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S AJ Green 24.6m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.6

Defenders aggressively running him off his spots cratered his offensive value during a cold shooting night from beyond the arc. He battled gamely on the defensive end, but an inability to punish over-helps completely derailed the offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -64.8
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 24.6m -12.6
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jericho Sims 10.9m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

Blowing multiple defensive coverages that led to uncontested layups, he looked completely out of sync on both ends. An inability to secure positioning on the glass or finish around the rim made him a massive net negative during his shift.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.6%
Net Rtg -69.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense -2.3
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 10.9m -5.7
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.3

Bleeding points on defense due to poor screen navigation heavily outweighed his spot-up shooting contributions. Repeatedly getting hunted on switches allowed straight-line drives that compromised the entire defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 32.2m -16.7
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Bobby Portis 26.7m
22
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.2

Feasting on smaller defenders in the post, he utilized a vast array of mid-range counters to carry the offensive load. Physicality on the defensive glass and timely weak-side digs cemented a highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.5
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 26.7m -13.8
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Cole Anthony 17.7m
16
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.8

Relentlessly attacking the paint and finishing through contact injected massive energy off the bench. Blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs showcased surprisingly stout point-of-attack defense that sparked transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg -44.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.7
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 17.7m -9.3
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
Gary Harris 17.4m
0
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.4

Punting his own scoring entirely allowed him to focus on facilitating and locking down the perimeter. Flawless execution of the defensive game plan and connective passing kept the offense humming without needing a single shot attempt.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.7%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 17.4m -9.1
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

Poor shot selection and missed defensive assignments plagued a frenetic but undisciplined stint. Gambling for steals left the backline exposed, negating the few positive plays he made in transition.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.1
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 7.3m -3.9
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Missing his lone look and getting beat off the dribble showed a struggle to find the speed of the game. He offered virtually no resistance at the point of attack before being quickly subbed out.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +107.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 3.3m -1.7
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Mark Sears 3.3m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Flashing a bit of scoring punch in garbage time was overshadowed by defensive limitations that kept his impact muted. Larger guards easily bumped him off his spots during his short time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 42.9%
Net Rtg +107.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 3.3m -1.7
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.8

Chaotic, high-energy defensive pressure completely rattled the opposing ball handlers during a tiny window of playing time. A hard-nosed finish at the rim capped off a wildly effective burst of hustle.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +107.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 3.3m -1.8
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Pete Nance 3.3m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Making the right extra pass and staying attached to his man maintained structural integrity during a brief appearance. Avoiding any costly mistakes allowed the team to tread water while he was out there.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +107.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 3.3m -1.7
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 31.5m
13
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.5

A relentless effort on 50/50 balls and elite defensive activity anchored his highly positive impact. His ability to mirror the opposing primary initiator for full-court stretches defined his night, turning deflections into transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +7.2
Defense +9.3
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 31.5m -16.3
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Deni Avdija 31.4m
22
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.1

Sloppy ball security and costly live-ball turnovers torpedoed his overall effectiveness, completely masking a red-hot perimeter shooting display. He bled points in defensive transition after struggling to stay in front of quicker guards on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 31.4m -16.2
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jerami Grant 30.9m
35
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.0

Relentless rim pressure resulted in a parade to the free-throw line, fueling a massive offensive rating spike. He exploited isolation matchups on the wing all night, though his overall impact was slightly capped by average defensive engagement.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 16/19 (84.2%)
Advanced
TS% 66.4%
USG% 41.4%
Net Rtg +60.9
+/- +39
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +23.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 30.9m -16.0
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Sidy Cissoko 28.2m
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.4

Offensive invisibility and a lack of floor spacing severely cramped the half-court offense during his minutes. Even though he provided decent point-of-attack defense, his hesitancy to attack closeouts allowed defenders to aggressively sag into the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 28.2m -14.7
Impact -12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Donovan Clingan 27.3m
14
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.6

Dominating the paint on both ends, he utilized his massive frame to alter shots at the rim and secure crucial extra possessions. Constant defensive collapses were forced by his pick-and-roll rim running, allowing him to easily eclipse his usual offensive output.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +9.6
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 27.3m -14.2
Impact +12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Kris Murray 26.7m
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Disciplined weak-side defensive rotations and timely closeouts anchored his minutes entirely. He was a complete non-factor offensively, but executing the drop-coverage scheme flawlessly kept his overall impact slightly in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +8.2
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 26.7m -13.8
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Caleb Love 26.2m
13
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.6

A massive scoring surge masked a highly erratic floor game riddled with forced shots early in the shot clock. Poor screen navigation and off-ball defensive lapses gave back almost everything he created on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.5
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 26.2m -13.6
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Rayan Rupert 16.5m
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

Forcing contested jumpers that fueled opponent fast breaks highlighted a struggle to find any offensive rhythm. While he offered some length in passing lanes, an inability to bend the defense ultimately stalled out multiple half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.0
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 16.5m -8.6
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+15.0

Elite rim protection and vertical spacing as a lob threat allowed him to completely terrorize the interior. Timing on weak-side blocks erased multiple defensive breakdowns, anchoring a dominant stretch of two-way play.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +3.6
Defense +9.6
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 16.1m -8.3
Impact +15.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 0
Duop Reath 2.6m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Capitalizing on a brief cameo, he popped for a quick perimeter strike against drop coverage. Solid positional discipline was maintained during his short stint to keep the net impact positive.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -130.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 2.6m -1.4
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Looking a step slow in transition defense, he failed to make a tangible mark during a brief rotation appearance. Opponents quickly targeted his lack of lateral mobility in space via high pick-and-rolls.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -130.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 2.6m -1.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0