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 177 attempts

DET DET Shot-making Δ

Cunningham Hard 5/15 -3.7
Harris Hard 7/14 +5.5
Ivey Hard 5/10 +1.5
Holland II 2/10 -6.3
LeVert Hard 1/10 -6.8
Jenkins Hard 2/8 -3.5
Duren Open 4/7 +0.1
Thompson Open 3/7 -2.1
Green Hard 3/6 +1.9
Reed 4/5 +3.7

MIL MIL Shot-making Δ

Porter Jr. 8/18 0.0
Rollins 9/16 +1.5
Portis Hard 5/13 -0.8
Green Hard 6/12 +4.4
Sims Open 7/7 +4.8
Kuzma 2/7 -3.9
Turner Hard 2/5 -0.4
Trent Jr. Hard 1/4 -1.4
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
DET
MIL
38/95 Field Goals 40/82
40.0% Field Goal % 48.8%
14/43 3-Pointers 13/44
32.6% 3-Point % 29.5%
19/24 Free Throws 20/21
79.2% Free Throw % 95.2%
51.6% True Shooting % 61.9%
55 Total Rebounds 51
13 Offensive 8
31 Defensive 32
25 Assists 28
1.67 Assist/TO Ratio 1.75
14 Turnovers 15
8 Steals 6
5 Blocks 6
18 Fouls 20
40 Points in Paint 46
8 Fast Break Pts 16
12 Points off TOs 22
25 Second Chance Pts 14
47 Bench Points 35
18 Largest Lead 5
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jericho Sims
15 PTS · 14 REB · 1 AST · 30.1 MIN
+19.36
2
Ryan Rollins
22 PTS · 4 REB · 8 AST · 38.8 MIN
+17.01
3
AJ Green
19 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 39.8 MIN
+16.96
4
Tobias Harris
20 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 29.0 MIN
+15.71
5
Cade Cunningham
17 PTS · 7 REB · 7 AST · 35.2 MIN
+12.83
6
Bobby Portis
13 PTS · 9 REB · 5 AST · 30.3 MIN
+11.57
7
Jaden Ivey
15 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 19.0 MIN
+11.29
8
Isaiah Stewart
5 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 17.5 MIN
+9.94
9
Kevin Porter Jr.
26 PTS · 2 REB · 7 AST · 35.2 MIN
+9.76
10
Javonte Green
9 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 15.9 MIN
+9.67
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 R. Rollins REBOUND (Off:0 Def:4) 109–113
Q4 0:01 MISS C. LeVert Free Throw 2 of 2 109–113
Q4 0:01 C. LeVert Free Throw 1 of 2 (4 PTS) 109–113
Q4 0:01 K. Kuzma loose ball personal FOUL (2 PF) (LeVert 2 FT) 108–113
Q4 0:01 TEAM offensive REBOUND 108–113
Q4 0:02 MISS P. Reed 25' 3PT 108–113
Q4 0:07 A. Green Free Throw 2 of 2 (19 PTS) 108–113
Q4 0:07 A. Green Free Throw 1 of 2 (18 PTS) 108–112
Q4 0:07 C. LeVert personal FOUL (3 PF) (Green 2 FT) 108–111
Q4 0:07 TEAM defensive REBOUND 108–111
Q4 0:09 MISS C. Cunningham 26' step back 3PT 108–111
Q4 0:13 R. Rollins Free Throw 2 of 2 (22 PTS) 108–111
Q4 0:13 R. Rollins Free Throw 1 of 2 (21 PTS) 108–110
Q4 0:13 J. Duren shooting personal FOUL (6 PF) (Rollins 2 FT) 108–109
Q4 0:22 J. Sims REBOUND (Off:4 Def:10) 108–109

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 AJ Green 39.8m
19
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.1

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
Scoring +14.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
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
+8.4

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
Scoring +16.6
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.5
Turnovers -5.9
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
+1.2

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
Scoring +18.7
Creation +3.0
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -17.3
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
-4.0

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
Scoring +6.5
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense -4.3
Turnovers +0.0
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
-7.0

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
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
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
+10.7

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
Scoring +6.4
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +11.4
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
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
+18.7

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
Scoring +15.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +16.8
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
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
-12.1

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
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
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
-10.0

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
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.0
Turnovers -6.6
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
+9.1

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
Scoring +9.8
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -3.5
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
+13.7

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
Scoring +14.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +5.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
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
-0.5

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
Scoring +5.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +7.6
Defense -4.5
Turnovers -2.4
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
+2.7

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
Scoring +6.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +5.7
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -3.5
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
-9.5

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
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.5
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
-16.8

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
Scoring -3.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.7
Turnovers -2.4
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
+8.4

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
Scoring +11.1
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +7.6
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -4.7
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
+1.4

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
Scoring +4.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.9
Turnovers +0.0
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
-10.5

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
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
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
-0.3

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
Scoring +6.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -2.4
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
+1.4

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
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2