Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIL lead BKN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
BKN 2P — 3P —
MIL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 161 attempts

BKN BKN Shot-making Δ

Wolf 8/16 +3.0
Williams Hard 4/10 +0.1
Martin Hard 4/10 -1.0
Saraf Hard 4/8 +1.9
Wilson 4/8 +0.5
Mann Hard 2/8 -4.2
Sharpe 2/6 -2.1
Claxton Open 3/4 +1.5
Clowney Hard 2/3 +2.7
Etienne Hard 2/2 +4.0

MIL MIL Shot-making Δ

Antetokounmpo Open 12/15 +5.6
Portis Hard 5/10 +3.4
Porter Jr. 4/10 0.0
Rollins 4/10 -2.5
Trent Jr. Hard 2/9 -4.4
Green Hard 5/7 +7.6
Turner 4/7 +1.4
Kuzma 3/5 +1.3
Harris 0/4 -3.9
Coffey Hard 1/2 +0.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BKN
MIL
36/77 Field Goals 44/84
46.8% Field Goal % 52.4%
16/42 3-Pointers 16/39
38.1% 3-Point % 41.0%
11/17 Free Throws 12/17
64.7% Free Throw % 70.6%
58.6% True Shooting % 63.4%
44 Total Rebounds 49
6 Offensive 12
25 Defensive 31
23 Assists 31
1.15 Assist/TO Ratio 2.21
18 Turnovers 12
4 Steals 13
4 Blocks 2
16 Fouls 16
34 Points in Paint 48
7 Fast Break Pts 18
19 Points off TOs 24
12 Second Chance Pts 19
63 Bench Points 39
2 Largest Lead 32
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Giannis Antetokounmpo
29 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 19.0 MIN
+28.05
2
Danny Wolf
22 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 30.3 MIN
+15.03
3
Kevin Porter Jr.
13 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 24.5 MIN
+14.74
4
Kyle Kuzma
11 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 22.4 MIN
+14.68
5
AJ Green
15 PTS · 3 REB · 5 AST · 23.1 MIN
+13.95
6
Ryan Rollins
10 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 31.0 MIN
+12.05
7
Jalen Wilson
13 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 16.1 MIN
+12.04
8
Myles Turner
10 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 22.1 MIN
+8.68
9
Bobby Portis
13 PTS · 6 REB · 0 AST · 20.9 MIN
+6.26
10
Gary Harris
0 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 11.6 MIN
+5.84
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:19 T. Etienne 25' 3PT running pullup (6 PTS) (D. Sharpe 2 AST) 99–116
Q4 0:25 D. Sharpe REBOUND (Off:1 Def:6) 96–116
Q4 0:26 MISS C. Anthony running DUNK 96–116
Q4 0:27 C. Anthony STEAL (1 STL) 96–116
Q4 0:27 D. Sharpe lost ball TURNOVER (1 TO) 96–116
Q4 0:33 D. Powell technical Free Throw 1 of 1 (3 PTS) 96–116
Q4 0:33 K. Kuzma technical FOUL (1 Tech) 95–116
Q4 0:36 T. Antetokounmpo driving DUNK (2 PTS) (A. Jackson Jr. 1 AST) 95–116
Q4 0:45 D. Powell Free Throw 2 of 2 (2 PTS) 95–114
Q4 0:45 D. Powell Free Throw 1 of 2 (1 PTS) 94–114
Q4 0:45 T. Antetokounmpo shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Powell 2 FT) 93–114
Q4 0:50 D. Sharpe REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 93–114
Q4 0:50 MISS A. Coffey 25' 3PT 93–114
Q4 1:04 T. Etienne personal FOUL (1 PF) 93–114
Q4 1:20 E. Liddell putback DUNK (2 PTS) 93–114

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 31.0m
10
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.9

Smothering perimeter defense (+9.4) and relentless hustle completely salvaged a rough shooting night. Despite struggling to find his rhythm from deep, his ability to disrupt passing lanes and contest shots kept his overall impact firmly in the green. His defensive intensity set the tone for the perimeter unit.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +45.4
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +9.5
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+11.8

Pivoting away from his usual scoring volume, he generated massive value through perimeter spacing and locked-in defensive effort (+5.0). Hitting timely outside shots punished defensive rotations, while his hustle metrics (+3.4) highlighted a willingness to do the dirty work. This two-way versatility drove a highly productive shift.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S AJ Green 23.1m
15
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.0

Lethal floor spacing completely opened up the half-court offense, as defenses were punished for helping off the perimeter. His elite shot selection and quick trigger resulted in a massive offensive footprint (+13.8 Box). Solid positional defense ensured those offensive gains translated directly to the bottom line.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 107.1%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +59.9
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Scoring +13.4
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Myles Turner 22.1m
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

Disciplined rim protection and timely offensive execution created a steady, positive presence on the floor. While his perimeter stroke wasn't fully dialed in, his ability to alter shots defensively (+2.7) deterred multiple drives. He played within himself, avoiding costly mistakes to anchor the second unit effectively.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +56.8
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense -2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
29
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+31.6

Unstoppable downhill aggression shattered the opponent's interior defense, yielding a staggering +23.8 box score impact in under 20 minutes. He paired this ruthless interior finishing with suffocating weak-side help defense (+5.7). The sheer physical dominance of his drives dictated the terms of the entire game.

Shooting
FG 12/15 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.3%
USG% 47.6%
Net Rtg +73.0
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Scoring +24.9
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +10.2
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.6

A disastrous perimeter shooting performance effectively killed the team's half-court spacing. Forcing contested looks from deep resulted in empty possessions that fueled opponent transition opportunities, cratering his net impact (-11.9). The lack of offensive gravity made it impossible for him to positively influence the game.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jericho Sims 23.3m
2
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

Operating as an offensive non-factor allowed the opposing defense to aggressively trap and double-team his teammates. Even with solid rebounding and capable interior defense (+2.5), the inability to punish defensive gaps severely hampered the lineup's flow. His extreme passivity was the primary driver of a negative overall shift.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg -38.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +10.2
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kyle Kuzma 22.4m
11
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.3

Excellent shot selection and a commitment to defensive execution (+5.7) resulted in a highly efficient outing. Rather than forcing the issue, he capitalized on high-value touches and consistently stayed in front of his man on the other end. This disciplined approach maximized his value without requiring high usage.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.4%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Bobby Portis 20.9m
13
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.6

Efficient floor spacing from the frontcourt was undermined by hidden mistakes that dragged his overall impact slightly into the red. While he knocked down perimeter looks with ease, poorly timed turnovers or missed rotations likely gave those points right back. The scoring punch couldn't quite outpace the structural breakdowns during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Scoring +9.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Gary Harris 11.6m
0
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.3

Elite point-of-attack defense (+6.2) and high-motor hustle plays completely masked a scoreless offensive outing. He embraced a pure stopper role, blowing up screens and generating deflections that short-circuited the opponent's sets. It was a masterclass in impacting winning without putting the ball in the basket.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +30.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Scoring -2.8
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

A brief, low-usage stint provided stable placeholder minutes for the rotation. He executed his lone offensive touch cleanly and avoided defensive breakdowns, ensuring the team's momentum remained intact. The performance was defined by simple, mistake-free basketball.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

High-energy bursts (+2.5 Hustle) during a short appearance injected immediate life into the second unit. He pressured the ball defensively and pushed the pace, maximizing his limited floor time to generate a surprisingly strong positive impact (+3.2). His aggressive mindset was exactly what the bench needed.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Minimal court time resulted in a perfectly neutral statistical footprint. He managed to break a recent scoring drought with a quick bucket, but the sample size was too small to influence the game's broader trajectory. He simply ate minutes without causing any damage.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -107.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
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
-7.2

A garbage-time cameo featured a rare successful offensive conversion, briefly snapping his recent efficiency woes. However, slight defensive missteps (-0.8) kept his overall impact marginally in the negative. His brief energy burst was ultimately inconsequential to the final result.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -126.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Nic Claxton 24.8m
7
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.9

A stark drop in offensive volume limited his ability to influence the game, resulting in a surprisingly negative overall footprint (-4.5). While his interior finishing remained highly efficient, hidden costs like poorly timed fouls or turnovers negated his baseline production. Opponents effectively neutralized his rim-running threat.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -46.9
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tyrese Martin 23.8m
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

An aggressive spike in shot volume yielded diminishing returns, as poor perimeter execution stalled out offensive momentum. Even with a respectable baseline of defensive activity, the wasted possessions accumulated quickly. The expanded offensive role ultimately damaged the team's overall rhythm.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -44.7
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Noah Clowney 21.4m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.9

Severe defensive lapses and hidden mistakes completely tanked his overall impact (-11.5) despite efficient spot-up shooting. He struggled to anchor the interior, consistently bleeding points on the other end of the floor. The low usage rate couldn't mask how much he gave back defensively.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -27.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -6.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 78.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Terance Mann 21.1m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.5

Smothering point-of-attack defense (+6.1) was completely overshadowed by an inability to generate quality offense. Forcing contested perimeter jumpers short-circuited multiple possessions and dragged his overall impact deeply into the red. His offensive hesitation ultimately allowed the defense to sag and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ziaire Williams 19.4m
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Elite activity level (+7.0 Hustle) kept his overall impact above water despite a rough night spacing the floor. Settling for heavily contested perimeter looks dragged down his offensive efficiency compared to his recent standard. His defensive rotations remained sharp enough to salvage a neutral rating.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg -43.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Danny Wolf 30.3m
22
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.3

A massive surge in perimeter confidence completely warped the opponent's defensive shell. Catching fire from deep forced hard closeouts, which he leveraged into an elite overall offensive rating (+14.7 Box). Consistent hustle plays further cemented a breakout performance that drove winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.9%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Scoring +15.1
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Ben Saraf 29.3m
10
pts
0
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.2

Playmaking ambition backfired, with likely live-ball turnovers severely undercutting an otherwise solid passing and shooting display. Despite generating quality looks for teammates and competing hard on 50/50 balls, the mistakes in transition defense proved costly. The overall negative impact (-4.6) reflects the hidden cost of those sloppy possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -5.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +7.1
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
7
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Terrific rim protection and relentless activity on the glass were unfortunately offset by clunky interior finishing. Missing high-percentage looks around the basket left too many possessions empty, dragging his net impact into the negative. His defensive anchoring (+5.0) deserved a better offensive counterpart.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 40.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Scoring +1.7
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +8.9
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Drake Powell 20.7m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.9

Complete offensive passivity allowed his defender to play free safety, stalling the team's spacing and rhythm. While his individual defensive metrics remained strong (+4.1), playing essentially 4-on-5 on the other end severely damaged the lineup's overall effectiveness. The steep drop in aggression was the primary culprit for his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jalen Wilson 16.1m
13
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.4

Decisive attacking in the half-court generated a highly efficient scoring punch in limited minutes. He paired this offensive assertiveness with disciplined defensive rotations (+3.4), ensuring his minutes were a clear net positive. Avoiding bad fouls and capitalizing on transition opportunities defined his successful stint.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.7%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

A quiet but mistake-free cameo kept the rotation afloat without bleeding value. He took what the defense gave him on a single interior touch, maintaining neutral defensive positioning throughout his shift. The lack of negative plays was the defining feature of his brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Flawless execution during a brief stint provided an immediate offensive spark. He maximized his limited touches by draining both perimeter looks, overcoming a slight defensive liability to finish in the green. It was a textbook example of instant-offense efficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -1.1
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1