GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 31.0m
10
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.2

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
Offense +4.0
Hustle +6.0
Defense +9.4
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 31.0m -16.2
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
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
+7.4

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
Offense +11.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.0
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 24.5m -12.9
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
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
+6.0

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
Offense +13.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 23.1m -12.2
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
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
+2.1

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
Offense +9.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 22.1m -11.6
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
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
+21.5

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
Offense +23.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.7
Raw total +31.6
Avg player in 19.0m -10.1
Impact +21.5
How is this calculated?
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
-11.9

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
Offense -1.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 25.3m -13.2
Impact -11.9
How is this calculated?
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
-4.2

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
Offense +2.9
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 23.3m -12.2
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
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
+3.5

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
Offense +9.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +5.7
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 22.4m -11.8
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
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
-0.4

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
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.2
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 20.9m -11.0
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
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
+3.1

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
Offense 0.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.2
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 11.6m -6.1
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
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
+0.2

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
Offense +2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 4.9m -2.6
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
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
+3.2

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
Offense +1.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 4.9m -2.6
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
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
0.0

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
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 3.9m -2.0
Impact 0.0
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
-0.3

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
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 3.0m -1.5
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Nic Claxton 24.8m
7
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

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
Offense +6.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.0
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 24.8m -12.9
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
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
-5.6

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
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 23.8m -12.4
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
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
-11.5

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
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.4
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 21.4m -11.3
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
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
-6.4

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
Offense -4.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.1
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 21.1m -11.1
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
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
+0.3

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
Offense +0.7
Hustle +7.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 19.4m -10.3
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
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
+6.2

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
Offense +14.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 30.3m -15.9
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
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
-4.6

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
Offense +5.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.2
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 29.3m -15.4
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
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
-2.2

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
Offense +0.4
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 23.2m -12.1
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
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
-4.4

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
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.1
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 20.7m -10.9
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
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
+5.3

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
Offense +9.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 16.1m -8.5
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

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
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 4.9m -2.5
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

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
Offense +3.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 4.9m -2.6
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0