GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S AJ Green 39.8m
19
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.8

High-volume perimeter marksmanship stretched the defense to its breaking point, driving a stellar +14.1 box impact. He consistently relocated along the arc to punish defensive lapses. Strong supplemental defensive metrics proved he was more than just a floor spacer in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.6
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 39.8m -21.3
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Ryan Rollins 38.8m
22
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+5.0

Surgical precision in the mid-range and paint fueled a dominant +15.0 box score impact. He orchestrated the offense flawlessly, blending his own scoring threat with timely reads to cutters. This performance cemented his recent emergence as a reliable primary initiator.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +4.9
Defense +5.9
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 38.8m -20.8
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
26
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.7

Despite generating impressive box and hustle metrics, a barrage of missed shots dragged his total impact into the negative. He routinely broke down the primary defender only to force heavily contested finishes at the rim. The aggressive mindset was necessary, but the execution lacked polish.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 34.6%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +5.7
Defense +3.6
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 35.2m -18.8
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 7
S Myles Turner 19.7m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Passive offensive involvement resulted in a negligible net impact despite decent defensive positioning. He drifted to the perimeter too often, settling for outside looks rather than establishing deep post position. The lack of interior aggression allowed the opposing frontcourt to dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -28.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 19.7m -10.5
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

A brief cameo appearance yielded positive underlying metrics before an early exit. Even in just a few trips down the floor, his sheer gravitational pull on the defense was evident. The limited sample size capped his overall statistical footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 3.0m -1.6
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bobby Portis 30.3m
13
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.9

Crashing the glass relentlessly and providing high-energy interior play drove a solid positive impact. While his perimeter stroke was erratic, he compensated by punishing mismatches in the post. His +4.5 hustle rating perfectly encapsulated his role as the team's emotional and physical spark plug.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +28.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 30.3m -16.1
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jericho Sims 30.1m
15
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.1

Dominating the painted area with flawless finishing generated a monstrous +19.8 box score impact. He converted every lob and putback while anchoring the rebounding battle. This physical mismatch completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt from the opening tip.

Shooting
FG 7/7 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.8%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 30.1m -16.1
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.9

Floating aimlessly on the perimeter led to a dismal -10.9 impact score, as he failed to aggressively hunt his shot. The lack of secondary creation or defensive disruption rendered his minutes highly ineffective. This passive approach completely stalled the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 22.0m -11.8
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kyle Kuzma 21.2m
4
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.4

A stark lack of offensive rhythm resulted in a highly detrimental -6.4 net impact. He struggled to create separation against physical wing defenders, leading to a string of clanked jumpers. The scoring drought severely handicapped the starting unit's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -11.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.3
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 21.2m -11.3
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 35.2m
17
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.0

Heavy offensive usage was offset by bricked jumpers from beyond the arc, dragging his overall impact into the red. While his playmaking generated solid box score value, the sheer volume of empty possessions stunted momentum. His inability to find a rhythm against physical point-of-attack defense defined the outing.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.7
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 35.2m -18.9
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tobias Harris 29.0m
20
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.9

Perimeter shot-making fueled a massive +14.5 box score impact, as he consistently punished late closeouts from deep. The offensive surge masked relatively quiet hustle metrics. His ability to stretch the floor opened up driving lanes for the guards all night.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.3
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 29.0m -15.5
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Duren 25.9m
8
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.3

A sharp drop in offensive volume limited his overall influence despite maintaining strong underlying box metrics. Opposing bigs effectively neutralized his typical paint dominance, forcing him into a more passive role. He still provided value on the glass, but the lack of scoring gravity kept his net impact neutral.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +33.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 25.9m -13.8
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 25.7m
10
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.7

Impact was heavily driven by elite activity levels, highlighted by a staggering +9.9 hustle rating that kept possessions alive. His defensive versatility disrupted the opponent's rhythm on the perimeter. The scoring uptick was merely a bonus to his foundational dirty work.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +43.1
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +9.8
Defense +5.3
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 25.7m -13.6
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Daniss Jenkins 24.1m
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.9

Forced perimeter attempts derailed his efficiency, resulting in a steep -12.9 total impact score. The shot selection was highly questionable, often bailing out the defense early in the shot clock. A severe regression from his recent scoring form left the second unit devoid of reliable creation.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.0
Avg player in 24.1m -12.9
Impact -12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Caris LeVert 23.1m
4
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-15.4

A disastrous shooting performance cratered his value, as he repeatedly forced contested looks from deep. The resulting empty possessions fueled opponent transition opportunities, leading to a team-worst -15.4 total impact. His inability to pivot to a facilitating role when the shot wasn't falling compounded the damage.

Shooting
FG 1/10 (10.0%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 18.4%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -47.0
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense -4.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total -3.1
Avg player in 23.1m -12.3
Impact -15.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jaden Ivey 19.0m
15
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.2

Aggressive downhill drives translated into a highly efficient offensive showing and a strong +6.2 net impact. He capitalized on transition opportunities, leveraging his speed to collapse the defense before they could set. Solid supplemental defensive metrics rounded out a highly productive stint.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.7
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 19.0m -10.1
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.0

Physical interior presence anchored the defense, generating a robust +5.4 defensive rating in limited action. He maximized his touches with decisive finishing around the rim. His ability to hold ground against bigger matchups provided a crucial stabilizing effect for the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg -23.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense +5.4
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 17.5m -9.3
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

Continued shooting struggles plagued his minutes, with a barrage of missed interior looks sinking his net impact. Despite commendable hustle and defensive effort, the offensive black hole was too much to overcome. The rookie hit a wall against set half-court defenses that dared him to shoot.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 23.9%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -43.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 17.2m -9.3
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.0

Relentless energy on both ends of the floor drove a highly positive impact score. He thrived in the margins, generating extra possessions through a +3.9 hustle rating and locking down his assignments. This gritty, low-usage efficiency is exactly what scouts look for in a rotational wing.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +3.9
Defense +5.2
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 15.9m -8.6
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 7.3m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.9

Flawless execution in the dunker spot maximized his brief time on the court. He capitalized on defensive rotations, converting nearly every look while providing solid rim protection. This hyper-efficient stint perfectly showcased his value as an energy big off the bench.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg -55.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 7.3m -4.0
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2